Abuse of hundreds of girls as young as ten covered up by police and social services(259 Posts)
today's Times - sadly behind a paywall but you can see the first par here - has a major investigation into appalling, widespread organised rape and abuse of girls in South Yorkshire.
Not only did police and social services fail to help the girls, let alone prosecute the offenders, they actually charged victims and their parents - one girl was charged with using drugs, while the men in the room with her went free, while one father who tried to get his daughter back was charged with racial harassment, ffs. AND his poor daughter, who had been drugged, was charged with assault. Another parent was charged with breach of the peace, another girl - only 13 - was arrested for a public order offence and convicted, while the men went free.
It beggars belief. The Times has seen more than 200 confidential documents from Rotherham detailing the crimes which were often not investigated - even though police and social services knew full well who the perpetrators were. But they were more concerned with hushing up the heritage of the offenders - Pakistani, Kurdish, Iranian and Kosovan gangs and families - than investigating hideous crimes.
In one case, police in Bristol rescued two girls who had been kidnapped but South Yorkshire police (where they lived) didn't even question them.
Neither the police nor the council apologised, btw. Oh no, the council just says ofsted think they are great and 'some work with individuals did not lead to court cases for a variety of reasons'. S Yorks Police say now they have eight officers looking into child sexual exploitation and they are 'a leading force in safeguarding vulnerable children'.
one girl was even offered lessons in urdu and punjabi, ffs. She'd been abused from the age of 12. And they wanted her to be able to communicate in her attackers' preferred languages!
edam - I read the paper copy this morning, it is unbearable to read - totally shocking and terrifying - especially those instances as you have said where the victims were arrested! Hw can those chidlren ever believe in any kind od justice?So much for this respect we are supposed to have for the police - even Andrew Mitchell wouldnt have words enough for the police involved in this.
I don't think this is a surprise to anyone who works in these fields. It is very disingenuous of ss and the police to pretend they were unaware of abusive predators. Historically it was impossible to get them to do much/anything for girls of 13 plus being abused by older males or for them to prosecute the men involved.
This links to why so many of the most vulnerable care leavers have been 'working' as prostitutes whilst within the system and then mainly carry on doing so...
Thank god the mood has changed and the institutions have realised they need to be accountable.
bean - yes, the 200 papers seen by the Times document the huge scale of offending quite extensively. The authorities knew hundreds of girls were being raped, abused, kidnapped and drugged.
Good grief, I wonder how on earth those poor kids could ever recover from this. What help have they had - presumably none?
This is almost beyond belief, isn't it? This particularly stood out: "After neighbours heard screaming, a 13-year-old girl was found at 3am in a house with a large group of men who had given her vodka. Police arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly but did not question the men."
I remember the murder of Laura Wilson being reported at the time, and the tone then was much more of it being a family/honour dispute - she was described as a "girlfriend" etc. Shocking that actually she was vulnerable and abused for so long before her murder.
It's awful awful awful but at least something finally seems to be getting done about it. There are more cases we haven't yet seen in court, I believe.
As an aside, I notice in that Daily Mail article a link to the story about the Fijian soldier who gave birth in Afghanistan - saying her father thinks she brings shame on the family. FFS.
Oh Lord the Laura Wilson case is so horrific - targetted from the age of 11 and killed when she dared to protest? And even when she was murdered, poor woman, the authorities still tried to cover up what had really happened?
Yeah I am sadly not at all surprised. I had a yp I was involved with placed for work experience at 15 instead of ss sorting the education this very bright child should have been having.
The yp was placed in a work place managed by a paedophile with a long history of abusive, violent relationships.
Whilst being abused and battered by this man and still 15 ss moved her into a flat 'semi independent living' which meant a visit once a week from a youth worker. The flats were partly boarded up shit holes.
Ss and the police were useless, utterly useless.
The sick thing is that they were more concerned about prosecuting Nick Griffin (who admittedly is a twat, but that's not illegal), for saying:
'Griffin concentrated on allegations of paedophile drug rapes by Asian Muslims in Keighley, Yorkshire, during his speech at the town's Reservoir Tavern on 19 January, 2004.
After making a series of claims about Muslim gangs grooming and raping children, Griffin said: "The bastards that are in that gang, they are in prison, so the public think it's all over. Well it's not. Because there's more of them. The police force and elected governors haven't done a damn thing about it.
"Their good book [the Koran] tells them that that's acceptable. If you doubt it, go and buy a copy and you will find verse after verse, and you can take any woman you want as long as it's not Muslim women."
Mr Jameson said Griffin's speech turned to allegations of violence by Asian Muslims against whites. Griffin said: "These 18-, 19- and 25-year-old Asian Muslims are seducing and raping white girls in this town right now." '
So they were busy trying to jail people for saying what was going on, and are still even now coming out with ridiculous statements like this:
"Sexual predators do come from different sections of the community and are criminals who need to be brought to justice regardless of their background."
having previously taken efforts to suppress the most salient point:
'Great care will be taken in drafting...this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham's qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.'
Anyone who has spent time in a country like Pakistan will understand that attitudes to women and girls are fundamentally different, and in areas where there are tens of thousands of Pakistanis living at arms-length from British culture and society, there will be problems.
sorry link to Griffin's trial www.scotsman.com/news/uk/bnp-chief-slated-multiracial-hellhole-1-688652
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
I hold no brief for Nick Griffin but they spent time and money prosecuting him while leaving serious, serial sex offenders not only free to prey on hundreds of girls but actively encouraged?! In one case the police refused to remove a girl when her parents gave them the address, saying she was 'safe'. Outrageous.
Diversity does not mean allowing sex offenders to act with impunity. It does not mean refusing to prosecute someone because they are of Pakistani origin and their victim is white (or black). It means treating people of different backgrounds equally and with respect. Which means known criminals of Pakistani heritage, or Iraqi, or Kurdish, or Anglo-ruddy-Saxon should all be investigated, charged and prosecuted.
I wonder whether this might have been a fatal - literally fatal in the case of Laura Wilson and no doubt others - mix of sexism, snobbery and inverse racism. There are suggestions that the police saw the girls as 'slags', responsible for their own premature sexualisation.
South Yorkshire police now denying there is any reluctance to investigate. So why does The Times have documents going back over a decade that show girls were left with their abusers, their families were charged instead of the abusers, that when girls provided interviews they were not followed up, that when the kidnapped girls were rescued by police in Bristol they were not even interviewed by S Yorks?
Absolutely disgusting! I only hope the police and the SS involved can live with themselves!
The girls were CHILDREN!
I think the race issue is what finally brought this issue to light, actually the problem has been that these girls have been targeted by pimps and abusers who have represented all races. I think there was evidence that the Asian men were more likely to be part of a bigger group and that the white men were more likely to be individuals or pairs.
The attitudes of the police were just as disturbing as the attitudes of the men involved.
No, the race issue was what encouraged some wrong-headed individuals to ignore their duties under the law. Anne Cryer, an MP in West Yorkshire, tried to raise this for years and kept being howled down by people who claimed it was 'racist' to suggest there might be a problem. Because the perpetrators were Asian gangs.
Clearly sex offenders come from all kinds of backgrounds, but to refuse to investigate where the perpetrators are Pakistani, or Kurdish, or Kosovan is outrageous.
Sex offenders come from every background, but issues of 'honour', perceptions of white women as promiscuous/inferior, etc. are an issue specific to certain backgrounds, i.e. Pakistani.
Policing should specifically address the issues and attitudes causing these crimes, not ignore the specific cultural issues and say 'sexual predators come from different sections of the community', or, worse, say 'sexual predators come from different sections of the community', and then refuse to investigate specific 'sections of the community' for spurious racism reasons.
The issue isn't really race. These offences happen across all cultures and backgrounds - although racial background does tend to impact the pattern of offending. The much bigger issue is the attitude of the police and social services.
As edam said - the problem is that they don't see the girls as victims. They don't see that they've been raped - they see 'slags' who were 'asking for it'. As far as they're concerned, it's normal for men to want to sleep with schoolgirls, and if the girls 'allow' it, then they've only themselves to blame.
Why isn't this in the news? I read it in the times at lunch and was totally shocked.
The poor little girl who got arrested for being drunk and disorderly ... the mind boggles.
Why aren't more people angry?
I was wondering that. I went on the guardian to read about it and couldn't see it anywhere
And why do people on here keep saying 'it's not really about race' - don'tthe memos show that that is exactly what it's about?
I've read the whole article now - c&p'ing from TimesOnline:
Alleged crimes for which no one was prosecuted include:
Fifty-four Rotherham children were linked to sexual exploitation by three brothers from one British Pakistani family, 18 identifying one brother as their boyfriend and several allegedly made pregnant by him;
A 14-year-old girl from a loving, supportive family was allegedly held in a flat and forced to perform sex acts on five men, four of them Pakistani, plus a 32-year-old Iraqi Kurd asylum seeker. She gave a filmed police interview and identified her abusers;
One girl, 15, spent days in hospital after a broken bottle was allegedly forced inside her by two young British Pakistani men in a park, causing her to bleed extensively;
A 13-year-old girl was found at 3am with disrupted clothing in a house with a large group of Asian men who had fed her vodka. A neighbour reported the girls screams. Police arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly but did not question the men;
A specialist projects intelligence report for police identified 61 girls 59 white, two Asian linked to sexual exploitation by three brothers from another British Pakistani family. It named 41 associates of the brothers who allegedly used girls for sex.
I feel ill thinking about it. How could the police not have prosecuted in the broken bottle incident? What possible excuse could there be????
But long before the asian gangs there were other men exploiting the same girls. I have known the entire female contingent of a care home being coerced into 'working' for the local pimp and his friends. In fact the same men have exploited cohort after cohort from the same homes and widened their care home circle to include the residences these girls got moved to. The girls vulnerable to this on the predominantly white estates are coerced by groups of white men, increasingly girls at school are coerced by groups of older teenage boys. Group abuse has increased generally, social media porn? Who knows.
Historically it wasn't an Asian gang issue, the abusers just reflect the changing profile of the localities. Ss and the police were ignoring their duties under law because the prevailing attitudes towards teenage girls are so conflicted and ignorant.
I think the real story is the level of abuse, the collusion from police and ss, the historic and systematic nature of the victimisation of these girls and the attitudes that allowed their abuse to continue. From my perspective they didn't investigate the Asian gangs because they had never investigated any of the men raping the vulnerable girls targeted. I don't want this to become a story of how Asian gangs with their culturally conditioned lack of respect for young white girls created a programme of abuse. This only happened because our society had no respect or care for these girls, we have a poor record of dealing with abusers full stop. Their have been many Asian victims too, these men are abusers and the myth that they don't target their own community needs to be busted as well.
Yes it's seems it's fine for girls to be raised and assaulted as long as we cannot be accused to racism. Misogyny is obviously more acceptable than racism.
A bad week for South Yorkshire Police now becomes a bad few weeks. Seriously very worrying that so much disturbing criminal activity was not considered worthy of proper investigation. Apologies to anyone here who works genuinely hard for SYP but their failings are looking pretty bad now, and I don't see how they can be considered a 'leading force' in anything, least of all this.
"This only happened because our society had no respect or care for these girls, we have a poor record of dealing with abusers full stop"
No this happened because these men decided that it was ok to treat these girls that way and blame them for the sbuse meted out yo them. And it seems from their reactions and actions that the police and SS on some level, agreed.
What an absolute disgrace! This is just so shocking, those poor poor girls
beancurd, that's a frightening post. What on earth is being done to investigate these paedophile groups targeting children's homes? Is it still going on with police and social services refusing to act?
Beancurd's right on this. I work with kids in an area of the UK that is predominately white British and the problem of child sexual exploitation is rife and extremely worrying. It's worth reading this report (at least the summary at the start) from University of Bedfordshire explaining some of the reasons responses to the problem from all agencies have been pretty feeble so far. (It pertains to England, but the same team are currently undertaking a similar study on behalf of the Scottish Government. I doubt the findings will be all that different.
I think this issue presents a MASSIVE challenge for all agencies involved in safeguarding children. Child protection policies and procedures are geared up to protecting children who have been harmed or are at risk of harm from their parents or someone in a parent/carer role. They simply aren't set up to deal with this problem.
The young people involved don't always see what they are doing as harmful. They may see it as doing something "grown up" and like the kudos it gives them amongst their peers as well as the financial rewards. Older siblings or even parents may encourage or at least not discourage them. One 13 year old we worked with was very pissed off when the police got involved because it meant she got in trouble with her parents and cut off her supply line of phone credit, alcohol and cigarettes.
It's often an older boyfriend who "grooms" them into sexual exploitation, not the stereotype old man in a dirty mac with sweeties. Agencies they come in contact may not notice anything particularly untoward about what's happening when it appears to be in the context of a "relationship."
Attitudes of practitioners can also get in the way. I've heard senior social workers, teachers, youth workers, health workers and police officers fail to see a child at risk even when they know they are involved in potentially harmful activities. They often see the girls as "streetwise" or "bad eggs" rather than victims of child abuse.
There needs to be a MASSIVE shift in understanding of the dynamics and process of child sexual exploitation amongst all professionals, and amongst parents as well as a far bigger emphasis on it within schools if this is to be seriously addressed.
I think we also need to take a sober look at particularly how sexualised messages in popular culture effectively help to "groom" girls in such a way that they are perhaps more susceptible now to sexual exploitation than ever before.
Am not linked to these girls anymore. I can't imagine it has changed greatly
Doesn't change for the girls I knew now they are women either
Was going to copy a few of your paragraphs to emphaise how much i agree kritiq but it is all so pertinent.
I think your last sentence is worryingly true.
I'm getting sick of reading of the failings of the South Yorkshire Police. Cover up after cover up. It really needs looking at.
Interesting parallel with the other case in the news today of the schoolgirl who's been abducted by her teacher. According to today's Times the school knew for months that there was some kind of relationship - they were spotted holding hands on the way back from a school trip at Easter time - and, following investigation, were on the verge of suspending him.
I find it extraordinary that it should take MONTHS to investigate something like this. Surely, at the first report that anything untoward might be up, he gets a VERY stern warning that this is absolutely not on and is then monitored very closely. I don't understand how a teacher's right to be protected from untrue allegations trumps a young girl's right to be protected from sexual abuse by someone in a position of trust.
Unless you take the view that she might somehow be responsible, or that these relationships might be OK.......
"perceptions of white women as promiscuous/inferior, etc. are an issue specific to certain backgrounds, i.e. Pakistani." And the police!
It seems like the police also thought these girls were disposable. They obviously thought them of lesser worth than their own daughters. It is appalling when those who are sworn to uphold the law fail to do so, and those responsible need to be brought to justice. They are as guilty as the rapists.
Thanks Kritiq, that's really helpful in terms of understanding how all the agencies that should be protecting children have failed to act. (Shamefully - understanding what is going on doesn't excuse it.)
Treats, yes, Megan Stammer's school seems to have handled several different cases extremely badly - not least, allowing a man charged with multiple sex offences to remain on the board of governors.
Any body ever watch Red Riding on Ch4
I think they had the yorkshire police down to a T.
To be fair, Red Riding was set during the 70s, wasn't it? (Only caught a little bit in passing.) And West Yorkshire, not South. (Yorkshire's a big place.)
Teachers DO have rights to be protected from liars. Liars ruining careers is a big problem. Charged yes, convicted???
Working in a university/adult education setting is far preferable to working with under-18s from my perspective. No chance of being banned from your whole profession over one misinterpreted incident. No government blacklist, employers can choose to trust you even if you've made mistakes earlier in your life. No enhanced CRB routine in many cases. Depending on your employer, you can avoid being suspended on full pay for months "pending an investigation" without details being released to the public, which is like having PAEDO SCUM tattooed on your face.
I've heard of cases where teachers have been put through the suspension wringer and the only release of information was about "INAPPROPRIATE" behaviour, when they have embezzled funds/ harassed an adult colleague/done something else they shouldn't, then ordered not to talk about the case. Some parents and others then assume "inappropriate"= child sex offence and then the LEA respond to them with "cannot comment on individual cases", which only makes them more convinced.
One decided to speak out publicly about the fact that the offence was one of a purely financial nature, knowing the consequences of breaking the confidentiality rules, and is now in a different profession. Other innocent teachers and people working with children have moved home with their families to escape threats to their life for similar reasons.
I don't disagree with protecting vulnerable teenage girls from exploitative adults. But the system can easily turn into a witch-hunt.
RIP the 30 people who killed themselves in the Operation Ore "paedo-geddon" scandal when they had never viewed child porn in their lives but were arrested at 5am, told to quit their profession forever and walked out on by their wives and families. RIP anyone murdered by a mob after they were named by some liar as a sex offender when they'd done no such thing.
Zealotry has fatal consequences. Remember that.
Extrospektiv - you're obviously talking from personal experience and some of the things you describe sound appalling. I think it's in everyone's interest when allegations of impropriety are made, to investigate promptly and thoroughly and to communicate the findings to all interested parties. That hasn't happened at this school and it didn't happen to the people you know.
I'm trying to fathom why - in this particular case - the school didn't take more decisive action when they were first alerted to the inappropriate behaviour that this teacher was displaying towards this girl. Either they didn't think it was an issue or they were more concerned with protecting the teacher than the girl. Either way, they were wrong, and either way their thinking appears to mirror the way the South Yorkshire Police regarded the victims that have been revealed by the Times investigation.
It's tough to be the person who has to exercise a judgement in these cases as to whether the accused has a case to answer or whether they're the victim of malicious gossip. But, it appears to me, that young girls are being put at risk by prejudiced assumptions about their behaviour and widespread acceptance of abusive relationships - and that these are colouring the judgement of those who should be protecting them.
A couple of stories from today's Mail:
"Anthony Lambert, 51, Stefan Godfrey, 44, John Shaw, 55, Ijaz Ahmed, 35, and Mark Adaoui, 40, Colin Simpson, 55, David Shardlow, 56, and Ian Yeoman, 60, were jailed for a series of sex offences.
The problem of teen prostitution in the city suburbs of Normanton and Pear Tree was so rife, one girl distressingly said that she thought taking money for sex simply must be part of growing up.
Disturbing CCTV footage played during the five-week trial showed one of the men, Shaw, checking into a Jurys Inn hotel with one girl and her friend, who could be seen clutching a large teddy bear."
The men it seems were not connected - I am not sure if these girls just hung around on the street or what.
"A 13-year-old girl who told police how she had been groomed and raped by an Asian sex gang wrote a harrowing letter to herself at the age of 14.
In the letter addressed to her alter-ego Michelle, she wrote, 'I feel like the asians really hate me even when they say they love me'.
The girl, who told police about the rape that took her virginity and the time five men queued outside a bedroom to demand sex from her, added, 'They took all my dreams and my life away from me.'
Police have never charged anyone in connection with any sexual offence against Amy.
Before the girl spoke to officers in 2003, South Yorkshire police already knew of a crime pattern involving the sexual exploitation of young teenagers in Rotherham by a group of offenders, largely of Pakistani heritage.
According to previously confidential documents seen by The Times, police in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, found evidence of thousands of similar crimes and described networks of Asian males exploiting young white females.
The groups were reported to have trafficked victims to cities including Bristol, Manchester and Birmingham.
Despite this, just two prosecutions of groups of men for sexual abuse have taken place in South Yorkshire since 1996. "
so much for S Yorks police and Rotherham council telling The Times that they are experts in dealing with child exploitation then...
Interesting historical perspective: www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/aoc_warning.pdf
I've been reading this, and thinking that I'm not suprised at the police attitude. Then I realised how horrific it is that I can think that.
That's why I frequent the femminist boards. If it was boys being abused would the reaction be the same?
This thread is so distressing. I had no idea about this. How coul I have had no idea??
I hope there will be a big public enquiry into this.
Don't hold your breath. The Times and DM were the only press to carry it and the BBC never touched it nationally. Any doubts that there isn't a cover up going on are fast going down the drain.
If you only read the article in the DM it was only a fraction of the cases listed in the Times. I read the Times articles and they were horrendous. Dozens of men if not over a hundred are involved yet the police have only gone after a handful.
If you have not read all the details in the six pages over two days in the Times you have no idea just how bad this is. There should be a public enquiry and the police found in dereliction of duty should do time.
It's one of the problems with The Times having gone behind a paywall - their stories don't have the same prominence they used to. But yes, interesting it's only the Mail that has followed it up (they do have a habit of lifting stuff, though, mate of mine who went to work there said 'I'm fed up of copying stories from other papers').
The Mail will publish any kind of 'Muslims doing x' story.
Whereas OTOH other papers may be put off by that angle.
Yes, it's worrying that neither the BBC nor the Guardian have taken up the story. I have just searched the Guardian website and found nothing. Am wondering whether to contact and ask them whether they are unaware of the story or just don't think it's worth coverage.
I can get access to the Times, with a bit of effort, so I may have to seek out their pieces.
It's in the guardian today at least, and the MP for Rochdale was on Today
It was on Radio 5 a lot yesterday. Today it is their lead item and they have covered it several times this morning. It is the lead item on the news on BBC1.
It is getting coverage at last
Last night's news item on BBC1 was about a review following the prosecution of nine men for similar offences in Rochdale - they were convicted earlier this year and the review was commissioned to investigate how the abuse could have gone on for so long with police/ss investigation. The Times were instrumental in bringing those cases to light also.
The cases in The Times in recent days have investigated similar offences in Rotherham and highlighted the police failings there. So although the two news items are on a similar theme, they're actually not the same.
Haven't heard the radio reports.
todays womans hour had a discussion with the new safeguarding head in rochdale recommended listening it made me pull the car over and howl at the radio at the lack of ownership of the guilt which should be thrown at the social services and police.
yeah, I caught a discussion about the review into Rochdale on the Today programme this morning, but there was no mention of Rotherham. The rest of the media is failing to cover the story beyond Rochdale - to show that it's not just one town.
Read in the metro that some of the victims are going to sue. Good.
I think it was a statement from the lawyer of some of the girls.
Good. That was my immediate reaction, they need to sue them. All these silly things that people get compensation for - and here their lives are fucked up and everyone looks away like they don't matter...
Not saying that compensation makes things right - but someone needs to be held accountable.
The truth is these girls were ignored and abandoned because they were white working class 'trash'
We live in a society where some children are seem as below the worth of others simply because of where they live and their parentage.
These girls were viewed as so unimportant it was more important to not be seen to have racial issues than protect them. After all if they weren't 'Chavs', knocking around on the streets when they should be at home they'd be okay. Our daughters would never be in that position...
But children from the poorest backgrounds-particularly those in the care system-have always been devalued and the sexualised.
I was involved in supporting victims of abuse from care home where attackers included local politicians and police. It was finally admitted by the council and compensation was paid. But none of the accuse, which included social workers, local police and councillors were ever criminally convicted. Some even continued to work despite dozens of accusations and the admission from he council abuse had occurred.
I hope heads will roll. I doubt it. After all, these girls have no value in our society. The people who covered it up do.
Was that in Islington by any chance, Rowan? I'd hate to think it was happening in more than one place...
Rowan - that's appalling. Really f'ckin appalling that that this is where we're at. The justice system lets people down due to power and now to so called racial politics. - if that's the case the our criminal justice system is not fit for purpose.
I pity the vulnerable. My heart breaks that young lives (and older lives) will be broken as there appears to be no acknowledgement or redress of consquences of their vulnerability.
I remember a case in belgium (?) a few years back where a couple of girls who'd gone missing were finally found - they'd had a horrible time and although they were returned to their parents, the case surrounded very important people and they had no justice. Just like the case of the West family - how did so many vulnerable girls go missing for such a long period of time before this couple faced the justice system. How many people complained to the police about them and why was nothing really found for so long. How many lives could have been saved?
This is appalling, it makes me want to throw up actually. Also charging the girls with drugs is almost saying that the abuse makes it their fault somehow and it's ok. They are children and should be protected!
The Home Affairs Committee is looking into this at the moment. One of the contributing factors is a lot of children's homes are now contracting with social services, and although children shouldn't be moved out of their local areas without good reason, they often are - because the children's homes are being built where property is cheaper.
This is a real problem with stopping children being groomed because they are removed from their entire support network. Yes obviously, children who are removed into care may not be safe at home but they will have family friends / teachers / neighbours etc who know them, care about them, and are likely to flag up when their behaviour changes and becomes out of character. Pick them up and drop them in another county and no-one will know or notice...
In 1990 there was a case in Rochdale which around twenty children were removed from their homes by social services who alleged the existence of SRA after discovering 'satanic indicators'. No evidence was found of satanic apparatus' and charges were dismissed when a court ruled the allegations were untrue. The children who were removed from their homes sued the city council in 2006 for compensation and an apology. (Wiki)
The fault lies in the care system and local child protection policies, not in the gangs / pimps.
achillea, the social workers involved in the satanic panic scandal in Rochdale were captured on tape - on their own video evidence - upsetting children in interviews that were themselves abusive. Horrendous stuff. The tapes also made it clear at least two social workers told downright lies in court. They were never tried with perjury and, worst of all, carried on working in social services. So professionals who torment children and believe any far-fetched rubbish about families can stay in their jobs, while merrily ignoring actual abuse by people outside the family...
edam it is absolutely vile and unforgivable. What concerns me even more is that London councils have for years outsourced their children in care to places like Rochdale because it's cheaper to house them there. They are even more vulnerable - this should not be allowed.
What should also not be allowed is council unaccountability. When there is a breach of contract (gross misconduct etc), quite often the individual just gets sacked and nothing is heard. The council is not accountable to improve its practices.
The Rochdale satanic thing only became so public because the abused children sought compensation in 2006. If that hadn't happened it would have been swept under the carpet.
"I was involved in supporting victims of abuse from care home where attackers included local politicians and police. It was finally admitted by the council and compensation was paid. But none of the accuse, which included social workers, local police and councillors were ever criminally convicted. Some even continued to work despite dozens of accusations and the admission from he council abuse had occurred."
This is why the police don't go after these people - they're in on it themselves too.
Chilling. Just glad Keith Vaz is insisting on an inquiry.
achillea, the satanic bs started because of american psychiatrists and fundamentalist charismatic Christians (sometimes one and the same) like Falwell, Roland Summit, Pamela Klein, etc. and the Macmartin Preschool case.
the Americans basically taught the British social workers how to extract false "disclosures" of SRA from young children and adolescents. Initially they were highly sceptical and there was no mainstream talk of it for at least 4-5 years after it had kicked off in the US.
then there were two extreme multiple-generational sexually abusive families, one in Broxtowe Notts. and one in Congleton Cheshire, in '87 which were so bad they thought Satan was the best explanation.
Rochdale just got caught up in it later.
don't forget that mad paediatrician in Cleveland - Mariella someone? - who 'diagnosed' hundreds of cases of child abuse by routinely sticking her finger up the bums of her child patients. That was around the time of satanic panic and I think was linked - any child she identfied by her favourite hobby, their parents were then suspected of taking part in satanic rituals.
Group of men in Oxford facing charges for child abuse At least the police are now finally prosecuting these kind of abusers. And it shows it's not just 'up North'...
They prosecute them though and they get extremely light sentences. Then they repeat the offence. The victims and their families get no support, and it becomes a possibility that the child will :
a) be openly more sexually aware and this leads to them being in danger of the same happening again
Or b) which i think is more than likely absolute tosh, become abusers themselves.
If they carry on like this, one day the country will be so desensitised to seeing cases of abuse it will become almost acceptable and no one will raise an eyebrow.
I am in the camp that believes these people lose their right to a normal life and should be marked in some way visibly so you know what they have done and what they are.
A big fucking P in the middle of their forehead should do it.
I think they should put them in virtual solitary confinement by preventing them from ever owning a phone line, mobile or terrestrial, or having internet access. The bad ones should also be disallowed a driving licence.
Should be cheaper than prison and probably far more of a punishment.
yes edam, know all about RAD & that mad and dangerous woman, went on at alder hey too but they tried to cover it up under the organ retention scandal. As much respect as I have for the families involved in that, they only had to deal with their DEAD kids' bodies being misused, and not in any sexual way. The parents called satanists had living children removed for no reason and sometimes traumatised for life, so their experience must be seen as worse.
RAD SCUM= NOT radical feminists (who aren't scum in the most part)
It is the people who subjected children to reflex anal dilatation (RAD) who should be called RADscum.
Reclaim another term from the anti-feminists, the transjacktivists ("1 in 300 people are trans, let's derail conversations about things which only or largely affect female bodied people, oh that not so important cisprivileged 51% of the world") " or "be a rich white woman and say prostitution, porn, S/M and beauty standards are so EMPOWERING! WHOO!" fauxminists.
Achillea - it's important that you make a distinction between Rochdale social services and the care companies that operate around Rochdale. They aren't the same at all and in fact have a MUCH better record of protecting/ supporting their chn. Also the idea that the chn were only in danger as they were sent up north is not supported in fact as this is a nationwide issue not a regional issue. rear same issues happen in London too.
For the record, I don't work for any of these companies AND am disgusted by the lack of action that takes place by the police and local services all over the country (these cases are the tip of the iceberg!)
You may recall West Yorkshire police got Channel 4 not to broadcast a documentary about this sort of crime in Bradford at the time of the 2005 general election, as they were concerned it might inflame pro-BNP sympathies. Quite when it became the job of the police to influence voting pappterns was never made clear. But this sort of thing has been going on for years and it is only brave people like Ann Cryer (and she was brave, because she was risking alienating part of her constituency) who have said to the relevant communities that they need to look at why this is happening, and their men think it is OK to behave like this.
Yorskhire Police have A LOT to answer for down the years
ask my relatives in Liverpool (I posted on the Hillsboro AIBU threads with fulminant YANBUs to all the questions about justice for the 96)
and now throwing raped children under the bus for the sake of community cohesion, engaging in un-British censorship and more. This is more likely to make me hate the police and the rule of law than it is to make me vote BNP.
If ignorant people want to vote for fascism, let them. They will never run this country. They might have had a chance if WWII and the Holocaust and the preceding 20 years' Rise of the Dictators in Europe hadn't happened, and if decades of anti-racism went out the window in one fell swoop.
Good point, Karlos. Was outrageous that Channel Four pulled that documentary.
Jumping - all children living in Rochdale are ultimately in the care of Rochdale childrens services - the buck stops with them. They need to watch the care homes more carefully and ensure CP procedures are followed, this is their responsibility.
It is very possible that they resent the fact that their services are being stretched and it could be enabling a laissez faire attitude among staff. But that's my cynical assumption, not necessarily fact.
(All looked after children, obvs children living with their parents are in the care of their parents.)
It was broadcast on a later occasion, and made very sorry viewing.
I know people who have prosecuted a number of these cases and what is very sad is that the girls always say how they thought the men responsible were their friends or that they loved them. They are children with so little love in their lives that they need very scant attention to throw their lot in with these men who then subject them to the most appalling abuse. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how damaged mentally and emotionally these children are to say that because they don;t run away, or appear to be willing to go back, they are somehow freely consenting.
This has been going on for 25 or so years. Widespread rings of men exploiting children for prostitution, centered on childrens' homes that either choose not to bother safeguarding them ("she's just a naughty 13 year old girl selling herself, not our problem, she's probably lying about being raped anyway") or have abusers/active helpers of abusers as staff members.
This story is from 1993 and tracks it to the mid eighties when benefits were cut and unemployment increased, leading to more children in care when their parents couldn't afford to look after them or collapsed mentally under stress.
Achillea, I thought one of the problems with SS depts dumping children in distant locations with cheap property prices such as Rochdale or Margate was that it's the original SS dept that is responsible for them, not SS in their new town. Very unlikely that a Hackney SW is going to know what on earth is going on with a Hackney child who is in some run-down part of Margate next door to a bail hostel housing sex offenders.
Kent CC told me that London (or other outside councils) don't even tell them when children are sent to Margate, so local SWs don't even know these kids are there, let alone anything about them. And the police have complained that SS refuse to tell them where children's homes are located... (dunno how true that is or what's the cause but I've seen it said repeatedly).
achillea-"looked after children"- specifically section 31 LACs
section 20 LACs still have legal responsibility shared between the LA and their parents, often being with extended family, so the family has more responsibility in that case.
What a fucking sick and sorry state of affairs.
I am speechless
I am chilled to the bone to read this. Only read DM article. I feel physically sick.
The police and Social Services should be held to account. How can they sleep in their beds at night knowing that they allowed, even encouraged, child abuse on a mass scale to take place? I hope they are sued by the girls' lawyers and they get all the negative publicity they deserve.
So many facets of evil. The local MP, Denis McShane, described the situation as 'pure evil' - sums it up quite well.
I know, it's beyond shocking, isn't it? That such a thing could happen today, in a civlised country with the rule of law, where everyone is supposed to be aware of child abuse... astonishing.
Jack Straw's comments yesterday are interesting - copying from Daily Telegraph. He does not shy away from the race issue:
"...in terms of group grooming there is an ethnic dimension which typically is of Asian men on white girls.
"And that is an issue which has to be faced and addressed within the Asian community about whats going on there.
That kind of leads to a sense of denial by them that all this is going on.
These are small communities so people will have a rough idea that people are abusing white girls in this way.
That has to be dealt with there as well as obviously with much more effective police and social services action.
Why didn't he do anything about it when in power, one wonders?
The LA that places maintains responsibility to a large extent. You're still making the assumption that its the private care home that are letting the kids down but that's not true. Many of the chn groomed are in LA care and in fact one of the chn that finally managed to bring this to light was in a private care home and the staff involved refused to let it be buried and supported the girl in her evidence process. That's not to say that no child in a private home was ever endangered by these groups - sadly they were.
One of the main reasons chns homes locations are not regularly known is the NIMBY effect. In my local area a chns home functioned for years successfully (for the child in a long term placement) until the neighbours found out. Cue a string of complaints about how their own chn were endangered by "these chn" and a local MP/ media involved. The result home closed and placement collapsed for the kid involved. Neighbours were pleased though :-/
Plus these groups of paedophiles that prey on vulnerable are all over country - not limited to "cheap" areas like margate and the northwest.
Not convinced that the local police and SW don't know about the kids being placed as they have regular meetings etc - sounds more like trying to shift blame.
Jumping - but NIMBY neighbours is no reason for SS to hide the locations from the police.
Cheap property prices isn't a judgement, it's just a fact that the sheer volume of children's homes is greatest in areas such as Margate or Rochdale where you can get big houses for relatively small amounts, making running a children's home far more profitable for the operators. You clearly work in this area and I'm sure there are many fine people who do, but what I've been told by councils is that you end up with a concentration of homes and children in one place, where it may be easier for gangs to target large numbers of children. And also other statutory facilities such as bail hostels, which may house sex offenders. There is a chain of multiple factors, all of which increase the chance of children being abused.
It's because in the cultures that these men come from, some men believe that white girls are fair game because they are allowed a lot of freedom in terms of what they wear and where they go.
These men look on these girls as less than them....and so think they are "reaping what they sow" by dressing in revealing clothing and being out alone.
That's it. The police won't say it...the community leaders won't say it...but WHY else are white girls being victimised by men from these cultures?
I don't care who says that's a racist viewpoint. It's not...I'm not racist.
Edam there is NO way the police don't know where they are - I'm sorry but that's simply an attempt to cover that the don't treat people equally. Also they know far more info about the private care homes in their area.
I actually don't work in that area but do know quite a few people that do/ did and did live in Rochdale for a few years - this issue was happening in the mid 90s which is why I know that the problem has existed for nearly 2 decades and is LA and not private homes centred. The SS and police have buried their heads for too long and I'm glad that it has come to light FINALLY but do worry that certain areas are being highlighted as if this is localised - unfortunately it's not :-/
I do object to the phrase "dumped" used as I think that denigrates the work the staff try and do with these chn. (Which of course does not confer saintdom on them as with any area of work there ate always some that aren't the best!)
Big - at least one of the guys in Rochdale was also jailed gor abusing Asian girls - a paedophile is a paedophile regardless of race!
2 Asian girls. And how many white?
Edam - very interesting about statutory privatised services being concentrated in areas where there is a density of large properties with lots of rooms that are comparatively cheap. This means as you said, that you will also get the privatised ex-offenders home around the corner from the childrens home.
I still don't understand where the accountability lies - with the new council or with the council where the child was originally from, that has outsourced the service.
woollytights it is no surprise that Asian paedophiles like their girls with snowy white skin, but race or culture really has nothing to do with it. The gangs do it because the can, and if the childrens homes were in a different area the gangs would be a different ethnicity (someone has already said this, can't remember who).
This notion that any ethnic communities can be some kind of mediation service between politicians and paedophile gangs is highly suspect. Jack Straw needs to watch his words.
But why aren't the white paedophiles doing it in this area then? If, as you say the children's homes are close to offenders rehab places...surely there aren't only Asian offenders or residents in the area?
I don't think Asian paedophiles would be fussy about the skin colour of their victims' skin...it's just that they look down on these white girls.
I've been looking at the reaction around the relationship between the teacher and his pupil this week and wondering why the difference in level of reaction.
And it's simple really. She's a nice middle class girl from a nice family. And so she has value and the police react more. Even though this is clearly consensual (doesn't make it any less wrong..)
But is a bigger deal than a 13 year old found semi naked in a house full of men, screaming hysterically? So why was she arrested for drunk and disorderly compared to Megan who is seen as a victim.
The more I think about this the more it is is clear this isn't just a race issue but a class issue. And until someone starts coming out and saying that (ahem MUmsnet HQ) the longer before any real change can be afforded.
I don't think race is relevant. They are a gang, that is all. In the same way as the satanic paedophiles were a gang. It makes no difference to the children who these people are, we need to focus on why it was allowed to happen and what the F the police, health, and social services were doing about it when those children so clearly needed help.
We won't learn anything if we focus on which continent the paedophiles came from.
Race is relevant. These are almost exclusively Asian gangs which focus on almost exclusively white girls. How can it not be an issue? . Isn't it partly because of the attitude that some of these men have towards Western women and girls that this is happening? The problem that those denying this have I guess is that are afraid that it will be used as a red rag to the bull of racism by certain elements of British society. When I was about 15 my friends and I were assaulted on a fair ground ride by a group of Asian lads. It hasn't made us hate and fear all Asian men of course.
But it is only part of a terribly sad, sick and complex problem, a major one I think is the utter sexualisation of every aspect of life in this country, and the slithering and creeping of porn into society. Those who believe there is nothing wrong with porn are wrong, in my opinion.
As for the rest of it - the attitude of the police and SS - that baffles me completely. How can they sleep at night?
ATPM- too right. That's why we need more sexual self-control. Teaching abstinence until marriage as the best way to live in schools, focusing on the responsibilities of both genders and particularly BOYS for a change instead of the old-fashioned misogynist routine of blaming girls for wearing a short skirt when it's the boy that chooses to approach them, ask to go with them (or not in rape), take all their clothes off and penetrate them.
And then teaching contraception as well, before the "ab-only doesn't work" crowd come on. That would be a start.
Ending pornification and the war on women by sex-crazed men will be difficult with the decline in moral values that has led more men to refuse to exercise any decency and more women and teenage girls to acquiesce to men's sexual fervency. More self-control on both sides would really improve life.
The ethnic origin of the paedophiles is just one part of it. If they were white british we wouldn't be discussing their ethnic origin at all. I'm not sure I know any ethnic groups where forced sex with underage girls is acceptable.
What is interesting is that there is a wall of ineffective communication that seems to happen when children talk to the police about their experiences.
There is a history of poor child protection practices in these areas and this is what they are looking into now. Again.
Traditional Asian families tend to be in favour of abstinence until marriage... not working out too well for the men in these gangs, is it?
Paedophiles come in all races and nationalities but when the perpetrators of gang rape are Asian, it seems the authorities have been only too happy to silence the victims rather than prosecute the criminals.
If the perpetrators in the Rotherham cases were White British, the council wouldn't have written a report saying ooh, we can't discuss this openly, it might harm community relations - and refused to investigate, to protect the victims, or to prosecute the offenders. Race is an issue in these particular cases, I'm afraid.
I don't think it's true at all that traditional Asian families are in favour of abstinence. My experience living in such a country was that there was extensive use of prostitutes by men.
Women were expected to be virginal of course, so the prostitutes would tend to come from a different area where the stigma would be less.
Yes but we need to be clear what type of issue it is. Race has been the reason police have used that they failed to investigate sooner (although I still don't see the connection), but it is not an issue to say that 'that's what these people do'.
It has been used as and excuse, possibly, by the police but a rather pathetic one.
Traditional radically Muslim Asian families tend to be misogynistically "in favour of abstinence", scare quotes justified by the fact they don't care if BOYS fuck who they like but will go to violent extremes to control girls.
BME families, moderate Muslims, Hindus, Methodists, Anglicans and traditional Catholics are far better at promoting abstinence for boys and girls alike without threatening to kill or maim their daughters if they fall short.
No, not schools in particular! And teaching abstinence is a non-starter. When I was at school however I don't remember any of this sexual pressure. IMO a real overhaul of society needs to happen (yeah, I know - as if?) Everything, including the media, magazines, films, entertainment needs to change. Children have sex blasted at them from every single angle from a very young age. I know, I know, it's already out there now and can't be changed
And if it was a white gang grooming predominantly Asian girls, then yes, race would be an issue as well.
X post Skippy, precisely my point.
by the police AND the council inc. social services, shamefully.
And yes, by 'in favour of abstinence' I mean publicly - not necessarily what goes on in reality. Similar to Victorian England where outwardly respectable upper and middle class men preached morality while nipping down to St Giles of an evening to shag little working class girls.
I think there are aspects of the culture of Asian communities in this area that play a causal role in this type of offending. These men are culturally conditioned to have embrace the double standards skippy refers to. Their "own" women are virtuous, the repository of family honour; and woe betide them if they ever betray those standards. White women are loose, they drink, dress provocatively and are generally not chaperoned by male relatives and thus fair game. I am not suggesting all men from these communities think like this, but it is a denial of reality to ignore the fact that many do.
ariel - very true that our society is far too sexualised. And commercially sexualised - people are making millions of pounds out of selling sex to our children, in products, images and words.
edam is spot on - the morality is very simialr to the Victorian double standard, which lead to incredible sexual repression of "respectable" women, and appalling exploitation of prostitutes.
I am aware that anecdote does not make data, that individuals do not represent an entire population, and that paedophiles come from all nationalities and ethnicities... but there are some areas where some Muslim men have an arrogant and hostile attitude to white women. Probably to Muslim women as well but that that'd be out of public view. As a teeanger, I lived briefly in an inner-city area where 90% of the residents were of Pakistani heritage. My sister and I, in our very boring, conservative school uniform, were frequently the targets of evil, sexist comments and harassment. Just being on the street alone, without a man 'guarding' us, was enough to provoke some of these bastards.
Fortunately the time one of the bastards tried to assault my 14 year old sister, our dog happened to have got out (he was a stray we had re-homed). Dog heard my sister scream and came running, knocked the guy flat and stood over him, drooling and growling. <proud> I do hope that frightened the man out of ever trying it on again.
So: safeguard prostitutes, criminalise buyers, teach the Muslim boys respect and real abstinence not hypocrisy?
Not just Asian boys, all boys. Asian boys are part of British society and should not have separate rules. And teach young girls that there is far more to life and ambition and success than having men lusting after you. Teaching abstinence won't work though - it's gone too far. Besides, why should people abstain until married?
Excuse the phrase "lusting after you" if it sounds like I am a prude - I'm really not! When I was a teenager I wanted to be fancied as much as the next girl. However, we weren't expected to just be doing it, or dressing like a hooker in order to fit in. And I'm only 37.
And also, I would also hesitate to hail the DM of being among the only ones to have the courage to speak out against this when they print pictures of half naked women and close ups of women's cleavages every day of the week. They are also to blame.
I believe in teaching abstinence before marriage to all young people! It was just that Asian attitudes were being discussed on this thread and their males in particular, so I stressed the point that good teaching of boys from communities where such a double standard subsists could eradicate sexist "false abstinence" and promote real abstinence.
I also believe that the need for separate Muslim schools would be lessened if teachers made it clear they would not refer children to family planning clinics behind their parents' backs or keep secrets for them about sexual activity.
Anti-traditional attitudes to sexuality and subversion of parental morals are one of the main reasons they want separate schools. I know young and older Muslims, it has came up several times. They have fought and won in multiple areas to prevent explicit sex education and would really want to prevent teachers keeping secrets about their sons or daughters being sexually active. This is something Gove could help with, not by legislating, just by speaking out against it.
Yes I know what you believe, Extro! However, and I mean no offence, your opinion I imagine is influenced by religious belief, and in this country in 2012, it is unrealistic to think this might work. I am talking about far more than teaching "abstinence" - the sexualisation of culture has spread to such an extent that it would simply teach children that sex was some holy grail of human existence which they need to get as soon as they possible. I am "just" talking about stopping showcasing sex as the be all and end all of human existence and promoting achievement of ones potential instead. I thought during the Olympics things might be changing, but sadly I was deluded.
if teachers made it clear they would not refer children to family planning clinics behind their parents' backs or keep secrets for them about sexual activity
The guidelines are there to protect the child. Children should always turn to their parents for guidance but sometimes their parents don't want to know and the authorities have to step in to support them.
As someone who went to Cathilic school where abstinence was preached, no contraception and pro life videos were shown, there is one thing I know for certain...
It does not work. Teenagers still have sex. They just may have no one to go to to discuss safety.
As a result STI rates and pregnancy were higher. I have no don't abortion rates were higher too.
On this one staff at the school did a diservice the girls in their care.
It would work better if done properly. Most abstinence education seems to be sexist, based on the idea that girls are at fault if sex does occur. An abstinence curriculum that focused equally on both sexes and challenged misogynist stereotypes at the same time would work for a LOT more young people. It's also disturbing when people defend anti-parent schools on a parenting site.
Ask yourself, if you were a Muslim parent in London, would you want some very sexually experienced still-unmarried woman around 40 who values "sexual pleasure and exploration" to be "approachable" to your children and refuse to disclose what they've been discussing? Who says that parents have no rights to know because they should not have "control" over young people's bodies? (big difference between control and simple notifying/refusing to engage them in secret conversations.)
Family values are impeded by anti-family schools and teachers.
I think you are getting uncomfortably close to the sort of victim blaming that allowed the authorities to ignore abuse, extro. I know that's not what you intend, but talking about abstinence sounds as if you think if we just tell the victims to keep their legs together, they wouldn't get into trouble in the first place.
No, I'm not victim blaming, edam. That's why I am focused on the idea of educating both sexes and especially boys who are the main culprits. I'm into telling boys to "keep your penis away from between girls' legs, butt cheeks or lips" more than I'm into telling girls to "keep your legs together".
Which is why Nadine Dorries' abstinence suggestion for girls only was fucked up and it being voted down wasn't really bad like I first thought it was although pro-family groups were upset. It would just have perpetuated already serious and dangerous gender disparities.
Ok, extro, glad to have your clarification. You have an unusual perspective.
Extro, your views are interesting but there might be another thread in which to discuss abstinence and promiscuity.
This thread is not about the innocent exploring of teenagers, this thread is about the dark side of sex - sexual exploitation of children, this is about middle aged men exploiting vulnerable girls, and using their bodies to make money for their mates. It is about the systems which allow such Dickensian scenes to take place in the UK in 2012.
You're a feminist edam, is it really so unusual for you to hear someone saying that boys should be taught to control themselves and the sexism promoting a blind eye to abuse of girls and women should be challenged in schools?
I thought this was a mainstream pro-woman perspective.
What achillea said, with bells on.
Extro, achilllea's made the point - this thread isn't about teenagers having relationships with other teenagers, it's about adults abusing them. Teaching teenagers sex is wrong won't prevent that and may make it even less likely that victims will seek help.
I know the difference between teenage sexual experimentation and exploitation. I'm not dumb, if you haven't noticed.
And teaching teenagers sex outside marriage is wrong could be done in the context of respect, surely? It's not exclusive to teaching about coercion and abuse and telling them to report any older man who tries to get them or their underage friends to be sexual.
You seem a little confused Extrospketiv.
You are arguing that Muslim parents withdraw from mainstream education because it is too permissive.
That might be so, but it doesn't follow from that that those children educated in Islamic schools are disproportionately growing up to be abusers of white girls.
I really don't see any correlation at all.
There are obviously sound reasons to try and keep British-Pakistani children in mainstream schools, and perhaps sex education concerns might be a way of doing that, but it's not going to change the attitudes whereby Pakistani girls and women are expected to preserve their honour so Pakistani men seek an outlet for their sexual energies in white women, from a culture (white British where such attitudes are largely or completely outmoded, depending on the individual's family background.
Apparently only 3% of British Muslim children go to Muslim schools anyway. Whether it is more popular for Muslim girls or Muslim boys is obviously irrelevant given that 90%+ are going to mainstream state schools, so these abusers are not coming out of madrasahs.
I do get what you are saying Extro and I think it's an important viewpoint but when people are not educated about sex, which seems to be what some portion of the muslim community want to avoid, then it becomes something that is not talked about and leaves people more open to abuse.
Promoting abstinance while at the same time educating about contraceptives, disease prevention and other sex related issues will not bring the segregated community any closer to the mainstream.
That 3% will go up big time if parents don't win these battles against schools which deny their morals or attack their rights to know what's going on with their children.
10,000 parents just in Tower Hamlets signed a petition by a relatively small organisation (SPUC)- not even the Muslim Council of Britain- against explicit sex ed in primary. The next step is huge campaigns against certain areas of cities where secondary teachers are attacking parental rights. I know, because I'm in touch with plenty of Muslims and one of the campaign leaders. They are getting more and more disillusioned.
I am not saying abusers come out of madrassahs or education in Islamic schools- not qualified to say either way. I respect these schools very deeply. I support them. I would prefer if mainstream schools did not do things which drive parents to setting them up or home-educating and will increasingly do so in future.
And the solution to "outmoded" (I am white British with two parents very much sex positive and very experienced before they married at 35 and 33 respectively, and reject this culture in favour of abstinence until marriage as a moral standard, I would like to encourage more white Britons to do the same.) is to bring back traditional values for whites and all young people in this country, rather than trying to oppose the strong morals of ethnic communities.
Pakistani men wouldn't have such an easy "outlet" (I'm talking adult men with adult white women here, nothing to do with abuse or rape) if white women were not so prepared to be promiscuous. Changing white British and European culture over time towards a better moral standard is certainly possible. Not everyone will comply, and I'm not intending to try to force them to- I'd just like it to be much more popular than it is now
I thought the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children campaigned against abortion, not sex education.
I think we also need to take a sober look at particularly how sexualised messages in popular culture effectively help to "groom" girls in such a way that they are perhaps more susceptible now to sexual exploitation than ever before.
I think what is needed is to take a long hard look at the messages boys are getting and how sexualised messages in popular culture affect the way they view themselves relative to girls and women. Girls are not doing this to themselves. They are not sexualising themselves and pimping themselves out. They become the victims of men who see themselves as an owner class and who see the girls as property, a collection of handy orifices on legs. What are the messages these men have absorbed about women? This is the question we need to ask.
Extrospektiv -- victim blaming much there?
Victim blaming where math? I have carefully made it clear that I want to challenge sexism and the culture of male entitlement, and that teaching must focus on boys (and the men they will grow into) keeping their penises away from women, not girls/women keeping their legs closed. So abstinence as the ideal, but a feminist version with a very strong message that girls and women were not put on Earth to be used as males' sex toys- built into a wider package of measures for integrating all into a non-sexist society.
I said teens/preteens who men were attempting to victimise should report it, not suggesting any of the usual "don't go out alone/wear short skirts/drink alcohol" routine.
The only females I blamed were adult white women who consensually gave themselves up to hypocritical Asian men who are repressing the women in their own culture. Whether women believe in abstinence until marriage on moral grounds or not, women should be saying "NO, I will NOT sleep with you, going out on the town looking for whites to get drunk and satisfy your lust then telling your daughters and wives you'll batter then if they disobey you and going on in mosques about morality on Fridays. You respect my sisters in your community and I might consider you." If women were not so available the abusive men may not then see white teenagers and children as sex objects either, lowering abuse and the amount of hypocrisy these men can get away with.
Pakistani men wouldn't have such an easy "outlet" (I'm talking adult men with adult white women here, nothing to do with abuse or rape) if white women were not so prepared to be promiscuous.
If women were not so available the abusive men may not then see white teenagers and children as sex objects either, lowering abuse and the amount of hypocrisy these men can get away with.
both indicate that the poor bewildered Muslim men do not have some sort of problem that could be called racism when it comes to sexual morality.
What you are suggesting is that they would have an easier time keeping their trousers on if non-Muslim women and girls were more like Wahabi inspired Muslim women and girls.
Which is to absolve the men of responsibility for their own actions.
Where this all ends up of course is the necessity for 'decent' women to wear a burkha. Because for some men in the Muslim world nothing less is acceptable and anyone not wearing one is fair game.
Extro you would need a huge cultural shift for that to happen and in my opinion would need to take down the patriarchy first.
Everything in modern western society is geared towards telling women that they only have value if they are capable of being appealing, pretty, well dressed, fluffy.
I don't really get your comment on modern white women who give themselves up to asian men, this thread was started about vulnerable girls who have been abused.
It is a basic pyschological fact that if you are starved of affection you will be more likely to respond to people who are out to manipulate you.
This is about more than instiling abstinance in society, though I do agree it would be wonderful if we could downgrade the sexual messages that are happening today.
This is about the care system, children being born who are then not given the loving support of two parents, who are then left vunerable and unprotected in the places where society places them after being removed from the parents. And then the failiure of society to ensure that people who take advantage of these vunerable members of society are punished appropriately and in a manner which will deter others from doing the same.
Well all I'm speaking about is white adult women not having promiscuous sex with them. Your extrapolations, math- and given my series of pro-woman, anti-porn culture/sexualisation/objectification/sexist double-standards posts on this thread it should be obvious that's not what I believe. I didn't say they should not wear Western clothes, or drink "out on the town" in the first place or anywhere else, or do other things these men consider as signs of sexual availability or consent. I believe the men are wrong for seeing these things as signs of availability and there is no fuckin' doubt they are wrong to believe anything but CONSENT is consent. And all I say is- women should not give that consent to casual sex with misogynist troglodytes! Even if they disagree with my moral ideology that casual sex is wrong full stop, their stopping would help to change these men's attitudes.
That doesn't make rape or child abuse victims responsible AT ALL and it doesn't make the women responsible for abuse, only for encouraging the stereotypes.
In the same way, black men who join violent gangs in the inner cities and commit crime encourage stereotypes of blacks, but they are not responsible for white people's racist attacks or attitudes; that remains the fault of the racist for failing to see that most black people don't fit the stereotype and the system is biased against them.
And they're rapists and/or child abusers to me, not poor bewildered men. Seriously putting words in my mouth which would never come out of it.
Are you saying that "reverse-racism" is actually a thing? Given that whites are the privileged and majority ethnicity in Britain and Muslims/Asians aren't.
Yes, I believe that every child should grow up in a loving home with a mother and father. Part of my traditional moral values.
Yes, where circumstances exist that make this impossible, the state should endeavour to provide something as close to a loving family as possible.
Family values and safeguarding children can coexist with better standards of (especially male) sexual self-control. Nothing is mutually exclusive and all would help.
It is not just 'promiscuous white British women' who experience horrible treatment at the hands of Muslim men.
There is an epidemic of sexual harassment in Egypt, so much so that women staged a march to protest it but the march was ambushed by men who assaulted and groped the marching women in broad daylight.
Racism is racism. Misogyny is misogyny. Bigotry is bigotry. Warped sexuality is warped sexuality.
When you get all four mixed up together and given a veneer of acceptability by alleged fidelity to a holy book it is not a pretty sight no matter who the perpetrator is -- and yes anyone can be a racist, misogynistic bigot.
I know that Muslims oppress their own women worldwide, in most Western countries that don't have the spine to do something about it, and as a permanent way of life in those countries they have control of.
Here we are talking about Britain. And the fact there is a difference in morality between most Muslim women and most white British women, with white Britons tending to reject abstinence-based views. The Muslim men then extrapolate from the majority of women here being subscribed to the sexual revolution (which is a male-centred, male-benefitting revolution that only seems pro-woman to some because of the outright patriarchy it replaced- compared to a world where most men and women in equal measure waited for sex until they were ready to enter into a lifelong monogamous sanctified relationship, and the culture was not highly sexualised, it is very much anti-woman) to assume that all women who behave and dress in Western ways are easy sluts who are fair game, and some extend that perspective below the age of consent.
If more white women rejected free love, which leads to men seeing no need to control themselves (without denying men's responsibility to do so) and as you said in a previous discussion tends to saddle females disproportionately with childcare responsibilities when pregnancy results, and so this moral difference was much lesser or non-existent, would such crimes be as likely to happen? Or would sexist Muslim men learn finally to respect all women and girls?
You cannot speak about Muslim sexual morality without accepting that what this means is making women responsible for men's actions. All women, responsible for all men's actions. What it is is carte blanche to treat women as if they were second class citizens, to act out all sorts of sexual dysfunction and warped ideas about what it means to be a man and to be a woman.
So I reject your idea that western women need to be more Muslim and that this would be a good thing. The Muslim world is the mirror image or maybe the other side of the same coin of the sexual revolution: it is male centered, male benefitting, sex centered, sex obsessed -- it only seems pro woman because on the surface mouthing platitudes about the sanctity of women sounds good.
A culture that places responsibility for the actions of one half of the population on the shoulders of the other half is a culture where nobody has any respect for the burdened half.
The ideas about the place of men and the place of women are fundamental to how a lot of Muslims organise their families and their communities. You simply cannot get away from this incredibly distasteful aspect of Muslim culture, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the cultures that Muslims come bang up against in the west. The most virulent expression of hatred and fear of women is seen in Saudi Arabia and remote places on the Arabian peninsula and in north Africa, places that are not melting pot societies by any stretch of the imagination.
I very much doubt if I said what you report I said. I do not make a habit of referring back to previous threads I have taken part in.
To answer your question 'If more white women rejected free love, which leads to men seeing no need to control themselves (without denying men's responsibility to do so) ... would sexist Muslim men learn finally to respect all women and girls?'
No. Their disrespect for women (for all women) comes from their religion which legitimises their feelings of superiority towards women including Muslim women, and towards all non-Muslims. There is nothing outside of the Muslim religion that will ever change the way many Muslim men see themselves and see women. The way they see themselves and women has absolutely nothing to do with the behaviour of any women, Muslim or non-Muslim.
And you can't have it both ways here. Either it is or it is not every person's responsibility to control him or herself. You cannot say on the one hand that women behave in a way that leads to 'men seeing no need to control themselves' and then on the other hand say it is the responsibility of men to control themselves blah blah blah. Men are 100% responsible for deciding there is no need to control themselves.
You are placing the blame for rape and sexual abuse of children squarely on the shoulders of western women who have sex outside of marriage in that last post of yours.
You seem to believe Muslim men's attitude to women and children is something fairly new and forged only when Muslim society came up against western society. Here is something I hope you will consider an eye opener.
Or you could watch The Kite Runner.
I have watched The Kite Runner and it was horribly disturbing. You seen The Stoning of Soraya M. and the Silent Witness two-parter about a ring of Asian sickos who go to mosque, say their salat then feed 14 year olds in uniform oxycontin tablets with their booze then drag their sleeping bodies in a car to locked rooms where they are kept as sex slaves and made to smoke crack, with the result of three dead teens (a murder, a suicide by a girl with nowhere to hide from them and a girl dying in a blaze when she deliberately sets off a fire alarm in the hope she'll be rescued from the locked bedroom she's found herself in)?
But you're a Christian and regular Catholic Mass attender. You must admit that Christianity was used in the past based on specific scriptures to promote patriarchy and hypocrisy, most flagrant in the Elizabethan era (public execution for fornication for fallen women, but men will be boys) and the Victorian era. People- men - took physical realities of the pre-modern era (low life expectancy, lack of reliable birth control, subsistence lifestyle requiring manual labour and physical strength, frequent hand-to-hand war) which pushed men into the public sphere and women into a private sphere seen as undeserving of the same esteem, added some selective scripture-quoting and dodgy theology, and tacked on oppressive power systems to create a world of a first and second class gender roles which allowed them to feel holy while massaging their ego with the tears of subjugated
property females and following worldliness, the flesh and its lusts. Jesus challenged this; a lot of His followers sadly reinforced it- many of them still sceptical about women's equality today. But most Christians today reject the more blatant forms of misogyny, and very few defend the levels of misogyny in the Islamic dominated world- a lot of the components were common in the Christian world of 200 years ago. This is one thing that had led some people who were religious before they found feminism to become atheistic or adopt alternative spiritualities.
If Islam is nothing but a system of oppression of women that leads to their rape, sexual abuse and murder and it cannot be changed, then it stands to reason Islam must be banned. There is no such thing as Islamophobia, because it is rational to fear rape, paedophilia and murder and rational to hate a belief system that inevitably perpetrates such crimes. Is that what you are saying? It is pure woman hating evil, and no interpretation of it can be made that supports women's equality or liberation from patriarchy?
I acknowledge how grim the present situation is but I see more hope for the future than that.
I believe in the sanctity of women, and the sanctity of men, in equal measure. Unlike most Islamic practice, unlike most of the societies that do or have ever existed, and unlike the misogynist twisting of Christianity that some pull. Oh, and if you're trying to characterise sexual abstinence as bad just because it's "more Muslim" for women that is the same sort of fallacy as the "Hitler was a veggie- don't be one" argument.
Oh- and suggesting that improved sexual morality ( strictly relative to the consensual sex act, once again) might help to promote less sex-centric views of Western women and teenagers among some Muslim men doesn't make those women responsible.
Or why are feminists concerned about sexualisation? "Rape is rape and is solely the responsibility of the rapist, never the victim" is an excellent platform to base discourse on. But if nothing anyone else in the world does or how external events may have an effect on the male psyche is relevant, because that's somehow "putting all the responsibility squarely on them", what's the point of analysing it at all?
Do you not accept that women who fall into bed with men from a misogynist religious background are a part of the pornified society? That although they are neither the necessary nor sufficient cause nor the root of this problem- as proven by male Muslim zealots' conduct in repressive societies and against their coreligionists of the
inferior opposite sex- they are validating perceptions which their sexual integrity (while adamantly not conforming to Islamic law or expectations) would help diminish? Is it not letting women down in its own right to let a man who hates women based on religious dogma use you for his loveless sexual gratification?
I see a parallel to rich porn stars and "high class" prostitutes, usually white bourgeois women, always legal adults working in safe legal or tolerated environments, defending their "empowering choice". Their presence on the misogynists' side is then cited to justify the unhindered existence of the sex trade, overwhelmingly in female and/or minor flesh. They are not responsible for the exploitation of women- traffickers, pimps, madams, johns, porn subscribers, usually-male politicians who hurt women economically and lead them into their clutches, legal systems who victim blame habitually as in the very case this thread was set up to discuss, and others are- but they certainly aren't helping their vulnerable sisters out; those who have a genuine choice and choose the sex industry are collaborating in something that is used to justify the continued oppression of others less fortunate and blessed with choices.
You are completely derailing a SERIOUS news item!!
This thread is about CHILDREN being abused by gangs of Asian men - now in Rotherham!!
This is not the place for your rant.
Animation he's not "derailing" anything. She's expanding and explaining things from a wider point of view.
SHE'S ...not he's.
Big - well it sounds like a rant to me - and getting well off the subject of why the girls and families weren't supported in Rotherham and the offenders prosecuted. And what's going to be done about it.
This thread has been as much about people trying to understand WHY this has happened as why they were not supported.
NOW we're derailing it.
Okay then - as long as we don't lose the point of the thread.
Carry on ...
Oh so you want to shut down a contextualising discussion about the patriarchy's efforts to lock down women as their property, sex education to stop boys growing up into sex-mad men or worse rapists, effectively challenging misogyny and the history of it in both "conservative" and "progressive" sexual ethics, how to ensure males are centered as the agent instead of blaming victims, and the intersections of race, gender and religion in this sort of abuse?
Sounds like derailing to me. Sexual abuse and rape of children or adult women does not occur outwith a social context. That's what is being discussed.
X post animation I understand. There's discussion about why it was not prosecuted and the failings of professionals covering the first four pages.
This is going on all over the country.
I recently worked in a home for teenage girls and the staff called the girls sluts and whores rather than believing that they been raped.
It was awful and I complained but no one wanted to hear it.
You're telling me there are professionals working with adolescent girls who think they have a right to mock rape survivors with gendered slurs and victim blaming, and top brass think that's not serious?
And generally reasonable people tell me we can be post-feminist now...
Good article by Esther Ranzen on the BBC news homepage today. Sorry can't do links.
Yeah lots of 'professionals' on the minimum wage, short term contracts and scant training.
Plenty of professionals with the same attitude, but really these children aren't cared about or invested in.
I think white women should have consensual sex outside marriage and still be respected.
I coukdn't care less whether I have 'the respect' of Muslim men, I don't respect a culture which condones the oppression and exploitation of women. Frankly their view of women is not my problem -these men behaved without any decency or compassion towards vulnerable young women and should be punished for it.
I want my DDs taught about sex in the context of a loving relationship and to see men as friends and equals first. I want them to be independent enough to choose whether they want to be in a sexual relationship with someone and secure enough to set boundaries.
Extro- most staff working in these places are unqualified//low qualified (level 2/3 nvq social care type quals) low paid staff who are often stuck in a 1950s mindset of angel/whore women. They believe in 'personal responsibility' for actions not structural causes. They take these jobs not because they care but because the jobcentre pushes people into any job they can apply for. The whole system needs overhauling.
consider this before some here condemn islam for the actions of these despicable men...
do you think a religion that
that bans gambling,
that bans drug taking,
that bans sex until one is ready for marriage,
that bans abandonment of blood ties
- do you think that religion seeks to serve the interests of men predominantly or the interests of women and their children?
a professional in social work would know more about this but what are the reasons why families break down and alot of childen end up in care in the first place?
you may think Islam is heavy handed in banning something for all just because of the possibility it might lead to dysfunctional individuals and families. but those problems do lead to the breakdown of alot of families, before we even talk about the pornification or sexualisation of society.
Yes, I think Iskam is a great method for protecting a community of people but woe betide you, if you should challenge those veiws from inside the community, that would lead to censure and rejection. And it does bugger all to protect people outside of those communities because people who do not follow the rules are therefore deemed unworthy.of the respect that should be accorded to all, regardless of whether they follow rules that a group of society have decided should apply to themselves.
South Yorkshire Police.... again?
that bans sex until one is ready for marriage,
Isn't that 14 in Iran?
Not sure about Iran, but 14 is the age of consent in Germany, in spain it is 13, france 15. But that doesn't matter because we are talking about the UK. And even if the person is mature and older, sex is still banned outside of marriage.
Yeah, South Yorkshire police AGAIN. But I bet it's happened elsewhere. Rochdale for starters.
crescent is right that it doesn't matter, but not because we are talking about the UK.
She's right because a lot of Muslims will do a religious marriage at whatever age they consider appropriate, frequently below 16 and because the abuse here didn't have squat to do with child brides or marital rape.
A family member once had a Turkish partner who he went to live with; she was from Istanbul where they generally kept to much more westernised standards: she said it was okay for adults to have sex with 15 year olds when it came up, which is a fairly common position to take overall in Europe (yet the age of consent there is 18, with 15-17 year olds allowed to have sex with someone of similar age). They knew of people in the poor, much less developed eastern where 9-10 was being accepted (for the female, of course.) This is illegal- the law is same throughout the Turkish Republic, it's not as if they have some sort of tribal exception or Kurd exception, but they do it anyway. They do the same regularly in France and Germany, according to reports from there.
As math said and you picked me up on before, edam, what makes this a problem is certain Muslims' belief they have the right to be on the "fun" side of a double standard no matter how much harm they cause to girls and women in the process. These people do not care about the age of consent any more than they obey other laws that stand in the way of their anti-woman hate campaign: they rape women (illegal), beat their wives (illegal), use physical violence against anyone who disobeys their unforgiving community standards (illegal), kick out their under-16 daughters with no further concern for their wellbeing if they hear a rumour they have kissed a white boy (illegal), give their grooming victims hard drugs to get them compliant or addicted (illegal) and so on.
As for British-Muslim grooming gangs: It's happened in Oxford, Blackpool, London, Birmingham, Derby, Bradford, Luton, Brighton, Blackburn, and other places. It happens in every city where there are misogynistic Asian men whose cultural influencers (imams, sex education in school, parents, youth organisations) fail to challenge or even reinforce the ancient belief in their supremacy and ownership over women, and there are vulnerable girls or women waiting to be led into their traps. It happens all the more in places where misguided levels of cultural sensitivity or outright victim blaming and disbelief characterise the official safeguarding response.
margerykemp that's interesting about the moral viewpoint of the workers in the care homes. Very good point. Have you had first hand contact with these places?
Like South Yorkshire Police, the moral culture of the establishment or institution seems to have pervaded the service and made it ineffective. South Yorkshire Police and Rochdale SS need a big kick up the backside and to be brought into the 21st century. A sense of accountability would also be helpful.
I suspect it won't just be Rotherham or Rochdale - I bet this has been happening elsewhere. Look at that group in Oxford who are being prosecuted at the moment (not found guilty yet, obv.). I don't know whether Oxford SS and police have been better at picking up and dealing with these crimes, but I would be surprised if there hasn't been similar negligence on the parts of the authorities in other areas. If Rochdale and Rotherham were outliers, their SS and police would have known that other forces/services were acting on these crimes. The fact that South Yorks and Lancs thought it was OK to brush these horrendous cases under the carpet (and West Yorks according to that brave MP who tried to expose these crimes there) suggests that's the attitude elsewhere as well.
It is an absolute disgrace. what a bunch of mysogonists. I am fed up with this stupid politically correct egshell walkiing that pervades GB.
would they treat their own wife,dd or sister like this? so why are other creeds and cultures fair game
Esther Tantzen has written about it today on the BBC website here.
Rantzen not Tantzen!
Ah yes - you can marry at the age of 13 in Iran. Girl power, eh?
Well said that woman. We are going to interview her in my magazine shortly - will definitely ask her about this. (Interview is mainly about dementia, but I'm glad Esther has spoken out on this issue.)
But really I think the scandal is not the behaviour of these men but the response of the authorities.
There is no way sex education in western schools influences Muslim misogyny. The misogyny is there to begin with. It is there in countries where there is no sex ed in schools.
Extro -- I am not characterising sexual abstinence as bad. What I am saying is that when it is expected of women and not men, and when lack of it is used to blame victims for influencing men to commit crimes then what we are looking at is a society where male power is used against women. That is the case in the South Yorkshire scandal.
And yes, I do think one of the main ways Muslims maintain their cultural identity is to assign second class citizen status to women -- this is evident in the increasing numbers of Muslim women who 'choose' to cover faces, a 'choice' that is financed by Wahhabi money from SA that pays for conservative imams preaching the very conservative Saudi version of Islam and consciously seeking to drown out all others -- and I wholeheartedly approve of legislation like the burkha ban in France that unabashedly seeks to affirm a western idea about women's freedom.
I wouldn't go so far as to ban Islam but I see nothing amiss with making people obey the letter as well as the spirit of the law as it pertains to women's rights. I think if the west does not stand up to Wahhabism and all that it stands for where women's rights are concerned as it digs its claws into Muslim communities in western society, and stand up to attempts to establish dual legal systems (Sharia alongside western civil systems) -- Sharia being the system that would effectively govern the lives of Muslim women -- and the normalisation of the sight of elements dear to fundamentalism such as veiled women on western streets, then there will never be healthy integration, there will always be groups that are intensely hostile to the west, and the west will always be in danger of violent attack. Fundamentalist Islam must be tamed. Part of what fundamentalist Islam insists upon is the primacy of the family (meaning the patriarch) and the treatment of girls and women as family property.
CrescentMoon -- I would look very askance at a religion that thinks it is OK to murder teenage girls in the name of family honour.
Its an awful awful story. But I'm sure I first heard about this on woman's hour a few years back when they intereviewed a victim and her parents. I just can not understand why its taken so long for something to be done.
I recently worked in a home for teenage girls and the staff called the girls sluts and whores rather than believing that they been raped.
Sorry Margery I didn't see this bit up thread!
"Part of what fundamentalist Islam insists upon is the primacy of the family (meaning the patriarch) and the treatment of girls and women as family property."
I suppose this is why they are so resistant to challenge or criticism of any kind to the extent they will get violent if you dare try - and justify that violence as rooted in Islam. It's rubbish!! Consequently they get away with being as oppressive as they like and are never made to account for their practices. No one dare challenge them. All religion can withstand criticism but oppressive controlling fundamentalists can't take it - they hit back with more threats and punishments.
Race, culture and religion are red herrings here. Although racists are rubbing their hands with glee at the chance to blame politically correct social workers for "nothing getting done," they ignore the inconvenient truths about class here.
This article is worth a read - about how the authorities approached the case of Megan Stammers in a very different way from those of children of the same age or even younger subject to sexual exploitation throughout the UK, every night of the week.
Something I find interesting though about the two stories is how many people discussing the Stammers case on the internet seem desperate to frame it as a story of star crossed lovers. At nearly 16, she's capable of making her own informed choice (some even suggesting she probably led him to stray) conveniently setting aside duty of care in a position of responsibility and that she was only 14 when he started sending "sexy messages." As in Rochedale, it appears the authorities (in the school this time) were aware of what was happening, but nothing was done. Hopefully we'll soon find out why.
Those who seem so quick to pour sugar on Jeremy Forrester's actions or the action of teachers who have affairs with their students generally, have nothing but bile for the men who sexually abused girls in Rochdale. What they don't realise is that in making up their own romantic narrative about what happened between Stammers and Forrester (or what happens with teacher-pupil love,) they are projecting their own assumptions of "what's going on," rather than considering the facts and acknowledging the likelyhood that an underage girl could be at risk of harm. That's exactly what social services in Rochdale did when they pronounced that the girls were "making a lifestyle choice" rather than being sexually abused and exploited.
Hmm. I wonder if Penny Red saw my post on here last week arguing exactly the same point.
The father of one of the Rochdale girls who went to the police and SS was interviewed on BBC News this week. He was told by SS - as per Kritiq's post above - that his daughter was a prostitute and that it was a lifestyle choice. And they were therefore not going to intervene.
He told the interviewer - "There's no such thing as a child prostitute. There are vulnerable children and there are abusive adults".
I was really struck by the straightforward truth of what he said.
Just to pick up on what Margery said yes, there are front line practitioners out there working with vulnerable young people who are very, very judgey and potentially either causing them harm, or failing to protect them from harm as a result. I'm involved in a couple of projects trying to change this at the moment.
Most practitioners aren't given adequate training or support on this. They're taught about bullying, but not about sexual bullying. They are taught about "treating everyone equally," but without the context that different people need different things and the playing field isn't level at the start. They are taught to look for signs of neglect and classic signs of abuse from parents/carers, particularly with the younger kids. But when the child is that bit older, they tend to fall back on the prejudiced view the kids are just "streetwise," rather than victims of abuse an exploitation. It's like they are ticking days off the calendar to when they turn 16 and don't even have to think about them. This tends to be the view regarding girls, but also sometimes boys who are being sexually exploited by older men.
It can be a tough call because children and young people have rights, and you've got to balance up their right to self-determination with risks to their safety and well-being. Whether it's because practitioners don't give a stuff about outcomes for poor kids or those in the care system, whom they've pretty well written off anyhow, or because they want to believe the fantasy romance of the girl with the older "boyfriend" who really does love her, honest, it's letting children down, letting them down very badly.
On the religion angle, I think there are those who are loving the convictions in Rochdale because it gives them the chance to slam Muslims (which they like to do anyhow,) and appear all high and mighty on the side of poor, abused girls. They're a little quieter about similar convictions of groups of men for child sexual abuse (e.g. Derby, Reading, etc.) where the perpetrators where mainly white and British.
The common factors in all cases were the perpetrators were men, the victims were poor, often in the care system or with little support from families and although some people in authority were aware of what was happening, or at least had strong suspicions, the abuse continued unchecked. Having got away with it, it's quite likely the abusers became more emboldened in their actions.
KRITIQ -- the phenomenon you see on the internet is victim blaming, beginning with casting aside the notion that there is a victim at all, and ending up with the framing of it as love, just as child prostitution is framed as a lifestyle choice. You see the same phenomenon and hear the same rationalisations when the subject of pornography comes up. Same with adult prostitution.
It is almost impossible for many people to conceive of the idea that girls and women are victimised in huge numbers by men. That inability has nothing to do with class or race or religion. It is all to do with a male centric narrative of how life happens that is so dominant that people repeat it without realising at all what they are saying. There is a massive amount of cognitive dissonance involved.
In the case of Muslim men targeting Infidel girls and women without remorse it is easier to see the nature of the misogyny, but it exists everywhere, as evidenced by the unwillingness of the police to see the victims as victims.
although the teacher shouldn't have done what he did with Megan, i don't think it is the same.
It sounds like some of the crimes in Rochdale were gang organised and they treated the girls like pieces of meat. the broken bottle thing i read on here (n
ot sure if it was the same place) but absolutely awful.
The men in Rochdale probably treat their own wives like dirt let alone the poor girls they sexually abused.
if it was my dds (not that i would ever wish that) i think i would prefer the teacher situation. at least Megan was treated like his partner. i am not condoning his behaviour but i don't think he is perverted in the same way.
having worked in a school i do understand how people could get attached to students but the teacher crossed the line obviously.
Math, I agree that there is widespread resistance to hold perpetrators of abuse to account for their actions, whether individually or collectively. I do believe this is part of that overall picture.
The common "tools" used to perpetuate this are minimising, denying and blaming. So, some will insist it's "true lurve" and not abuse (minimising.) Some will say the media overblows the incidence and it only happens in a few areas involving specific people (denying.) Some will claim that girls mature faster and lead men on (blaming.)
There is certainly nothing inherent in Islam as a faith, nor Asian communities as a group that predisposes men to feel specifically entitled to sexually exploit non Muslim or non Asian girls. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the perpetrators pulled the excuse that "it's not wrong if they're not Muslim," out of the justification bag (from the "denying" file.) Similarly, you might get an Irish Catholic priest claiming that he was only showing love and affection for the young parishioners he had sex with (that comes from the "minimising" file.)
This doesn't mean that either faith nor either culture specifically sanctions abuse or agrees with the excuses given by perpetrators.
There are large parts of the muslim world that find honour killings alien to their practise of religion mathanxiety. I would assert that Honour killings are associated with the cultures of the middle east and the asian subcontinent rather than Islam. That it existed gro ancient times. I say this because there are arab christians,arab druze who commit honour killings against their daughters as well as arab muslims. and there are asian Sikhs and hindus who also carry out honour killings alongside the pakistani muslims who do it.For Muslims of South east asia, for muslims of sub saharan africa, bosnia, even parts of south asia like Sri Lanka honour killings are as incomprehensible as to a person in Europe.
But what is widespread across the Muslim world are the Sharia law prohibitions on alcohol, gambling, drugs, sex outside marriage, breaking of ties of kinship. These are unambiguous prohibitions in Islam- from one end of the Muslim world to the other there is no disagreement that Islam bans those substances and behaviours. There are no exceptions to these prohibitions, not wealth or poverty, not male or female, not strong or weak. But I believe this is to protect women and children because they are often the first to suffer from the harmful effects of alcoholism, substance abuse, gambling addiction, promiscuity, absent father -ism. If you wish to say the rules are made up by men, then they are by a man who wished to protect his daughters and her children.
It is not hard to focus on the hijab or veil because it is visible whereas the other well known prohibitions in Islam are not visible. But the latter are the real substance of Islam. Muslims legitimately differ on whether the hijab or niqab is compulsory or not but not that Islam allows drinking, or allows games of chance, or allows drugs, or allows recreational sex outside of marriage, or allows blood ties to be cut and forgotten. It is these reasons so many families break apart.
Alemci, I know you say you aren't condoning what Forrester did, but I'm still seeing alot in your post that suggests it wasn't all that bad.
He treated her like his partner? From my understanding, some of the victims of the Rochdale abuse also regarded an abuser as a "boyfriend." As often happens, an "older boyfriend" can morph into a pimp, often without the young person recognising what's happening.
You're also making alot of wild assumptions about the perpetrators in the Rochdale case "treating their wives like dirt." Would you also say you assume the 4 men jailed for filming sex parties with under age victims in Berkshire recently (a farmer, a bank manager, a scout leader and a member of the Household Cavalry - who all happened to be white,) treated their partners like dirt?
Yes, teachers can "get attached" to children, but there are policies, training, laws and management supervision to prevent the line being crossed into forming a romantic/sexual relationship. Forrester chose to step over that line.
Does it matter if a man abuses a child because he is "perverted" or because he simply thinks he's entitled to do it and/or his actions are harmless? The impact on the young person isn't automatically less if the perpetrator has convinced himself (and many of us, sadly) that he wasn't really doing such a bad thing.
Islam may ban sex before marriage. But the Pakistani in Britain CULTURE says that this only means with GOOD MUSLIM GIRLS. It doesn't matter how many non Muslim girls they have sex with, as long as they haven't sullied the name of a Muslim girl.
It is CULTURAL, not religion orientated. Or it's a deliberate misinterpretation of those religious teachings at best.
It is well recognised that a Pakistani family will turn a blind eye to their Son's goings on provided it is not involving Muslim girls. Anyone else is seen as 'fair game'.
It is sad but true that the majority of Male Pakistani's in Britain see white girls as somehow 'less' than their 'good Muslim girls'. And therefore fair game. At ANY age.
I am an orthodox Muslim and find the behaviour of these men very abhorrent and aberrant to my experiences and the teachings iv sought to learn.
It's hypocrisy and everyone hates a hypocrite.
And while their may be ISLAMIC bans on sex outside marriage, CULTURALLY in British Pakistani's this is interpreted as a ban on sex outside marriage with MUSLIM GIRLS.
It is to protect the honour of Islam. Now if there is a girl who isn't Muslim, well then she HAS no honour to protect...
And THAT'S the way these men see it.
Interesting posts, Kritiq. Race was one of the excuses used by the authorities in Rotherham for failing to act, though, as the documents the Times found recorded.
But CrescentMoon - They DON'T see it as hypocrisy. Because an 'honourable' girl would be accompanied. An 'honourable' girl wouldn't be wearing revealing clothing. An 'honourable' girl meaning a MUSLIM girl. Which is how they justify this.
To them, these girls are seen as less human than their sisters, their cousins, their Aunts, their Mothers.
All because they do not act in the same way as Muslim girls. But this is NOT an Islamic Country, and these girls have the right NOT to be abused like this.
No matter what they are wearing, no matter if they have nobody with them, no matter if they smoke, drink or take drugs. They have the RIGHT not to be abused and raped. And they have the RIGHT to justice if it does happen to them.
Which is why the conversation is hinging around WHY British Pakistani's that are doing this are avoiding justice simply so as to not be seen as institutionally racist.
And the failings of S Yorks Police and SS has been ongoing for years. To the point that when I was a LAC at age 15, some 16 years ago, and was to be placed in a Children's Home there, I told SS that I would run away each and every time, and present myself back at their Essex office, until they relented and placed me with another family member in Scotland! If I as a 15yo knew how bad it was, why in Hell hasn't 't something been bloody DONE about this?!
The story of the girl that got arrested for D&D when screaming sickens me to the pit of my stomach.
These girls deserve MORE.
I don't care how it's done, but FFS ensure this doesn't ever happen again. Thoroughly investigate EVERY allegation of abuse. Doesn't matter what race/religious background the accused is from, EVERY allegation should be investigated with the same fine toothed comb.
Prosecute EVERY case that has proof. Dish out the maximum sentence. EVERY TIME. With no time off for 'good behaviour'.
Get the girls into SAFE accommodation. With caring, on the ball, well paid staff.
More patrols of areas known to have these issues.
SS to ensure the well being of every LAC.
Couthy, Catholic Priests don't necessarily see their sexual abuse of young people as hypocrisy either. In their minds, they think up what to them is a very plausible rationale for why what they are doing isn't bad. Senior clergy may also try and cover for them rather than admit what they are doing is wrong and hold them accountable. Perhaps they don't want to give the church and the community a bad name. However, that doesn't mean that there is anything inherent in the Roman Catholic faith, or Irish society, for example, that condones sexual abuse of children by priests.
It's the same for the perpetrators in Rochdale. They will come up with the excuse about non muslims "not counting" if that serves their needs. There may even be leaders within their communities who try and hush it up rather than hold them accountable because they don't want to give the faith and community a bad name. However, this doesn't mean there is anything inherent in Islam or in Pakistani British culture that condones sexual abuse of children by adult men.
I can assure you as well that the attitudes of some "authorities" that they couldn't/shoudn't intervene because sex with the girls was "consensual" or they were making a "lifestyle choice" is not uncommon in all areas of the UK (please see margerykemp's and my posts on the Megan Stammers thread.)
And, it's important not to forget that what you say is being used as an excuse that "non Muslim girls" don't count clearly doesn't apply universally. Believe me, there are Muslim girls and young women who are subject to sexual abuse from Muslim men. They just have to pull a different excuse out of the bag to justify that one.
I'm not saying we should completely ignore cultural or faith aspects of both perpetrators and victims as that WILL have an impact on how crimes happen, how to stop them and how to support the victims in their recovery. But, there's a danger on focussing too narrowly on this one point and missing the bigger picture, including the failings amongst social services and other people in positions of authority who allow their misogynist and classist preconceptions to get in the way of ensuring the well being of vulnerable young women.
Also, if we just focus on Pakistani men as being the most common/worst/etc. perpetrators of child sexual abuse, it gives all those other men another excuse in their bag of tricks - the, "I'm a nice white guy. I can't be a nonce."
The thing about the Muslim religion is that it is not organised centrally. Anyone, like CrescentMoon does, can say, 'This is not what the Muslim faith is about' when talking about honour killing or women wearing the veil. However, you don't have to look far to find imams issuing fatwas on Salman Rushdie and on Danish cartoonists, or blaming earthquakes on women wearing western clothing. It seems that Islam can be anything an individual Muslim wants it to be. This is handy when criticism is leveled at the Islamic faith generally or at individual Muslims for their attitudes.
I think there is plenty of evidence that in times gone by Irish society wasn't going to do much besides turn a blind eye to sexual abuse of children and that it was a widespread phenomenon. The Carrigan Report, commissioned in the 1930s by the government of the time, was deemed unfit to publish because it painted a picture of Ireland that was contrary to the glowing national image pedaled by the nationalist politicians still basking in the aftermath of independence from Britain. The report found an ever increasing rise in the number of sexual abuse incidents against children investigated by the police. The response was to regulate dance halls and increase the number of placements of poor children in industrial schools and magdalene laundries. Irish society treated the children of the poor appallingly. The priests and the bishops came from that culture. The hierarchical, patriarchical structure of the church contributed to the 'don't ask questions' attitude.
Irish Catholicism (both the organised church and the laity) in those days bore a strong resemblance to PrincessSymbian's description of Islam --
'Yes, I think Islam is a great method for protecting a community of people but woe betide you, if you should challenge those veiws from inside the community, that would lead to censure and rejection. And it does bugger all to protect people outside of those communities because people who do not follow the rules are therefore deemed unworthy.of the respect that should be accorded to all, regardless of whether they follow rules that a group of society have decided should apply to themselves.'
You could substitute 'the Irish Catholic Church' for 'Islam' there and not skip a beat.
It was an organisation that claimed complete loyalty and the threat of exclusion meant social disaster and condemnation to hell. The only people who could get away with standing up to a priest were those who had money or were very well educated or held some authority due to political connections. Those it deemed unworthy of respect were treated with the utmost cruelty.
CrescentMoon -- 'But what is widespread across the Muslim world are the Sharia law prohibitions on alcohol, gambling, drugs, sex outside marriage, breaking of ties of kinship. These are unambiguous prohibitions in Islam- from one end of the Muslim world to the other there is no disagreement that Islam bans those substances and behaviours. There are no exceptions to these prohibitions, not wealth or poverty, not male or female, not strong or weak. But I believe this is to protect women and children because they are often the first to suffer from the harmful effects of alcoholism, substance abuse, gambling addiction, promiscuity, absent father -ism. If you wish to say the rules are made up by men, then they are by a man who wished to protect his daughters and her children.'
Ultimately it is the man's good name that he is protecting, since the women and children in his family are his and reflect his standing in the community just as an individual's car or the appearance of one's house reflects on the individual in the west.
And on the subject of alcohol prohibition and protection, again, it is the 'protection' of only the Muslim girls that matters. Nothing in Sharia seemed to keep the Muslim men from drugging or administering alcohol to the Infidels prior to abusing them.
Sharia ultimately only benefits the Muslim man within his own community.
Sex crimes are not about sex primarily. They are about power.
I always put down cover up conspiracy theories around these cases as paranoid right wing ravings.
I am ashamed that I took the media and authorities at their word. The bogeyman Griffin and other right wingers were the only people saying that it was occurring.
Well we can plainly see who was lying now.
Anybody that has read the Times in the last week now knows the truth about the cover up going on across the media.
Other than a small piece in the DM nobody has taken up the Times report. The sort of obfuscation and lying by omission that the police and ss did is now, this very week, being carried out by the BBC and 90% of the rest of the British media.
If you haven't read the Times report you are only seeing a small fraction of what is going on.
I feel so naive and stupid. I will never again take anything authorities or the BBC say at face value.
One other point,
What happened on Monday was very close to what fleet street call a spike, where by one organisation put out a report on the same day that they know another counter report is coming out.
What are the odds on the The Rochdale Child protection report coming out on the same day as the Times report.
Tied into the fact that everybody else in the media is ignoring the Times report it makes you wonder.
I share your repugnance with both the men in the Rochdale case and the authorities couthymow. no attempts to excuse, minimise or legitimise. my posts are to show how much distance there is between the religion these men are claimed to follow and their behaviour.
these men have tried to create their own get out clause from the strict islamic rules that are in place to protect society - women and men. Islam doesnt allow a person a get out that once he is away from his community he can break all the rules. the Qur'an and hadith remind many times that religion is for every part and scene of a persons life - not just on Fridays or consigned to one month a year. in the Qur'an when Joseph was propositioned by a beautiful woman he refused saying he feared God - thus abstinence is to be maintained even if a woman literally throws herself at you. islam places the responsibility for sexual abstinence both on men and women, but some muslim cultural takes are that if the woman doesnt mind, then the man doesn't need to mind. this is from culture, not Islam and all muslims can identify it as that.
however in this case, this is not between consenting adults but men who went to prey upon young vulnerable white girls. sharia law would be the first to condemn them.
as for islam is not organised centrally as mathanxiety said, this is true. islam has jurists, theologians, historians but Islam has no priesthood.
there is no pope, there is no archbishop, no critical figurehead. we have no religious hierarchy. no rites of religious admission close to baptism, communion, barmitzvah. unlike church and synagogue services a mosque may have anyone lead a prayer, not only the imam. the 5 daily prayers are an obligation between an individual and God, not between the community and God. that is why the imam is not required for daily or communal prayers to be counted.
orthopraxy - correct practise - is maintained by consensus bottom up, not hierarchy top down. there are many muslim cultures that accepted the rules and structures of Islam but would not have accepted an arab clergy or an arab based religious hierarchy. so the lack of a religious figurehead has always been a key part in Islam's take up amongst a wide range of ethnicities and cultures.
the only problem is unlike in christianity or judaism, we have no mechanism for excommunication. this has become a glaring problem in the last few decades when dealing with extremism. there are no rules that fatwas have to be checked by a higher authority before being issued, no central authority. the majority of muslims have held together by convention to conform, that is why there are far fewer sects in islam compared to Christianity. but one an extremist imam makes a fatawa, or minority break off from the majority, once that pressure to conform has been thrown off there is no other method to curtail deviant/ extremist imams.
as for the catholic church in the republic of ireland. imagine how few social problems there would have been had it banned alcohol and betting shops alone. these were a great past time of irish poor men to relieve the drudgery of their lives despite how their families suffered and children ended up poor, homeless or vulnerable.
America, Norway tried to prohibit alcohol because of social problems - like modern day children ending up in care homes - but Islam was more successful in enforcing teetotalism because it is a compact between the individual and God, not between the individual and the state, or the individual and his family. it is much harder to ignore the All Seeing God rather than the censure of your wife and community, or of the criminal proceedings of the state. but there are some who still try and find a way out for themselves to do so.
Thank goodness for Nick Griffin. What would we do without him.
The media has not ignored this case it is all over the press and internet media.
Those posts were for childrenofthestones.
I refuse to engage with the Islamic morals discussions as they are not relevant. It could have been a gang from any background.
I do understand that it could have been any group of men. But the facts are, in this area, it IS a particular group of men bound together by their cultural group.
And discussing the reasons WHY that is happening is NOT Racist.
It's a bit hard to be Racist with a Pakistani Ex-H, and a DC that is half Pakistani.
Doesn't mean that I am not allowed to explore the reasons WHY this particular group of men seem to have the idea that young girls can be raped and abused rather than respected and looked after as they would want their sisters to be.
And the only conclusion is that they have culturally decided that the rules of Islam about abstinence only apply to Muslim girls, not vulnerable white girls.
They may be using this as an excuse, as their justification, but it doesn't mean that it can't be challenged.
The refusal to discuss this issue including the cultural issue is what has allowed this to go unchecked for so long.
What is needed in the Pakistani families there is for the police and SS to crack down on it, and prosecute each case to the full extent of the law.
Irrespective of whether the perpetrator is White British or British Pakistani or Green Martian.
Every case SHOULD be thoroughly investigated and punished to the full extent of the law.
And the leaders of these British Pakistani cultural groups NEED to come out and stand up for these vulnerable girls, and heap censure on the men who do this.
These attitudes need to be changed from inside the British Pakistani areas out wards.
And the police and SS need to sack anyone that doesn't follow official procedures during these investigations.
Maybe bring in police from other areas to change the ethos of this police department from one that blames the victims to one that tries to get the victims justice, one that tries to protect the vulnerable girls.
1- I cant abide the gimp Griffin. He is an opportunist of the highest order. But Achilla, can you deny that like me, you thought he must be lying when he brought it up at the time.
If the police had spent less time trying to prosecute him for telling what turned out to be the truth and more time prosecuting the child rapists he wouldn't have been able to make so much credit from it.
2-I gave up looking for reports about the Times story after Wednesday (Have you read it I mean the 200 secret files going back over a decade NOT the Rochdale Care report about the 8 men now doing time that was put out on the same day)
If you can show me where that report has been 'all over the press and media' I will happily take that back
Maybe doing some work with the Imams and other well respected locals to work on changing the attitudes of these men is the only thing that would work.
Get the Imams to publicly decry those men that do this, get the Imams to heap shame upon those men.
It is the only way it will stop, is if these awful attitudes towards white girls, that they matter LESS than their sisters, are changed from within that group.
3- Sorry I only just realised that " I refuse to engage with the Islamic morals discussions" was aimed at me.
Where did I mention Islamic morals?
Childrenofthestones the thing you mentioned, a report being met on the day of its publication with a counter report, isn't a 'spike' - a story is 'spiked' when it's not run at all.
Still not seeing much on this story on mainstream news. Much more fuss about the Kate photos - another aspect of general contempt for women, I suppose.
I probably have made some assumptions Kritiq but I still think the men in Rochdale worked in groups and it makes the whole thing very sinsister.
The christian faith doesn't believe in sex before marriage either but it doesn't mean christian men will go off and sleep with a person who has a different view and be unfaithful to their intended.
Maybe thePakistani men don't treat their wives like dirt but it can't be very nice to be married to someone who behaves in such a way and is unfaithful behind your back then turns up the mosque and prays.Not a great role model to his children.
I don't think much to any people male or female who cheat on their partners and sleep with underaged kids including the teacher.
I just think the men in Rochdale worked in a gang and treated the girls like prostitutes.
children - that wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at various other people upthread who were talking about it.
You are right, I apologise and stand corrected. But you understand the fleet street tactic I am talking about, where they run a story that will deflect the impact of a rivals story. Of course paranoia is a terrible thing but nothing would surprise me where this story is concerned.
Any takers yet on proof of the Times story( 200 secret files not the 8 or 9 men sent down) being all over the papers and electronic media?
How do the Times know about 200 secret files? Perhaps why the story has been cut.
achillea - good investigative journalism. Quite possibly a leak from someone disgusted at what has been going on.
Islam doesnt allow a person a get out that once he is away from his community he can break all the rules. the Qur'an and hadith remind many times that religion is for every part and scene of a persons life - not just on Fridays or consigned to one month a year.
Fundamentalist Islam sets up a polarity between the Muslim and the Infidel. This brand of Islam expresses animosity towards the Infidel, and especially towards the concept of 'America'. It also expresses its animosity towards western women -- here it mixes up psycho sexual problems with issues of faith. There is a strong sense of Us and Them, with negative values and attributes ascribed to the Other -- the Infidel -- that is far too often accompanied by actual violence and disrespect. Western women in particular have been demonised and the process of demonisation has been accompanied by a process of distinguishing Muslim women from Infidel women via 'modest' clothing. There seems to be little or no sense of sharing a common humanity with western women. This sort of process can never end well.
There is no single 'Islam', as you have explained yourself. You cannot say 'Islam does' or 'Islam doesn't' X, Y, or Z. Nor can you say 'This element is merely cultural baggage while this is actual religion'. Your conception of what Islam requires of an individual could be completely different from the understanding of a jihadist as to the requirements of his or her faith; what constitutes a good Muslim is up to the believer to define.
The Irish state initiated the Children's Allowance quite early on in its existence, in the teeth of opposition from the Catholic Church (which claimed it undermined the Family) so that women and children would have something to live on no matter how poor the family and no matter for what reason. At the same time however, married women were barred from civil service employment and employment as teachers in the state education sector from 1932 until 1973(?) and there was a strong assumption that a woman would work only until she married if she was employed elsewhere (in business, in a bank, etc) Promotion in large companies was not for women therefore. Women could be doctors or lawyers, writers or artists, but naturally only a few from the educated classes could aspire to those areas. Women were 'protected' and held in a childlike state of dependency on either their husband or the state, while the primacy of the Family (the man) as breadwinner and adult was asserted. I see very strong parallels with the 'protection' element claimed for Islam. That word 'protection' is a double edged sword when men do it 'for' women.
There was a very active temperance movement in Ireland ('Pioneer Association') in the early twentieth century, and abstinence from alcohol was heavily promoted in church and school alike, with mixed results. I have many relatives who have never touched a drink of any kind all their lives. They wear their old Pioneer pins when they go out. The pins stand for 'Don't bother offering me a drink'. I have one relative who had a serious alcohol problem but recovered.
Actually it makes you wonder how many coppers might have been involved in abuse themselves. I don't want to cast aspersions on any serving or former officers but one factor in abuse scandals that have been hidden in the past was that the abusers included powerful people, who were able to silence the victims. Including police officers, MPs, celebrities...
And it's hardly unknown for coppers to demand a freebie from a prostitute. Perhaps some may have been tempted to do the same with victims of abuse - after all, many prostitutes are.
I think that is highly likely, Edam. Wouldn't be the first time. Anywhere there is crime going on in an organised fashion with regular profits or some sort of attractive benefit attached, there will be amoral people wishing to get their snouts into the trough.
So how could you stop the protectors becoming the abusers? Make them all eunuchs? Pop em all on bromide?
I too think it's highly likely, i have personally witnessed 'brotherhood' or an inpenetrable organisational wall of silence and inaction when i came up against the family court, social services, and police. I am painfully aware that its possible.
Have been reading this thread with increased depression - I feel like hiding it.
How depressing and utterly shocking that social services could tell a concerned father his daughter was a child prostitute and that it was her lifestyle choice In this day and age when we are supposed to be more concerned about children's rights than ever before in history! Makes you wonder what training these SS receive. OR was the racial element and need to be politically correct so strong that it trumped the children's right not to be abused? And does misogyny play a role too - talk of sluts etc.
For those who say this scandal has nothing to do with race, you are so wrong. If race had not been an issue, something might have been done to protect these innocent and vulnerable young people.
Islam is culturally misogynistic and it is well documented that Muslim men regard Western women as loose and worthless. And no, they don't treat their own women well either.
Yep, this is just becoming a Muslim bashing thread under the guise of concern about abused kids. No one seems interested in discussing the class aspects, nor recent similar cases where perpetrators weren't Muslim or Pakistani. At least one Muslim member has explained why this kind of behaviour isn't sanctioned by her faith, but everyone else seems to know better. And guess what - a person can have been married to a person of colour, even have a non white child and still hold racist views. After all, men can be married to a woman and still have sexist views.
I'll leave you all to it then.
"How do the Times know about 200 secret files? Perhaps why the story has been cut. "
FOI requests and lots of hard graft.
No achillea the story hasn't been cut. It is still behind the paywall at the Times site.
Unless by cut you mean cut out of every other news agencies and the whole BBC output, in which case, yes it has been cut.
It may has well have had a D notice put on it for the amount of coverage it has had.
As I have said elsewhere, the most sickening thing now is that the lying by omission and obfuscation that the Police and ss were guilty of when they left these children to be repeatedly raped is now being repeated by the media today, even as they pretend to be outraged and giving us all the facts.
People on here and elsewhere are seeing the Rochdale carers report and thinking it is the whole story. The real story is being buried by everyone, the BBC and 90% of the media.
Take the red pill.
I think we need to remember that these paedophile gangs are what they say they are - gangs, groups of corrupt depraved people. They could be muslim or catholic, they could be satanists or evangelists. So there is no point in bringing Islam or religion into this.
The police here were out of their depth and the social services were keeping their heads down. I only hope everyone can learn from this although I doubt it. Even after Victoria Climbie and a full Inquiry with major reforms, we had Baby Peter. As someone said earlier, the care system needs a complete overhaul, and that does NOT mean outsourcing to private companies. The lines of accountability need to be much more clear - as with the Haringey cases, these cases show a similar pattern, that one service will pass the buck to the other, or assume x is dealing with y.
All the services were culpable, and I think this is the case here as well.
We will learn nothing if we keep whittering on about Race, Islam, morals and the Leftie PC brigade. There is a catastrophic failure in the accountability of our institutions and this is what allows such evil to take place under our 'watch'.
I think Kritiq's post from late on Monday bears repeating (I have C+Pd below). She suggests that SS is geared up to deal with abusive families or carers, not gangs. So they ignored gangs because they didn't know what to do about them.
The Muslim issue - my analogy would be that child abuse was endemic in the Catholic church for decades. That doesn't mean we stop talking about it, or ignore it because non-priests and non-Catholics also carry out abuse (and Church of England priests - see Megan Stammer's school governor who stands accused of multiple cases).
It's not unreasonable to look at the racial element, both in the way it apparently frightened the authorities off investigating - Anne Cryer MP was shouted down when she tried to raise the issue in West Yorkshire - and in the profile of the perpetrators in some cases. Very far from all cases of abuse, just as Catholic priests are not the only abusers (and clearly not all Catholic priests were/are abusers either). Look at the allegations about Jimmy Saville - we must have police and SS that are not afraid to investigate abuse, no matter WHO the accused is.
Kritiq's post from Monday:
"Beancurd's right on this. I work with kids in an area of the UK that is predominately white British and the problem of child sexual exploitation is rife and extremely worrying. It's worth reading this report (at least the summary at the start) from University of Bedfordshire explaining some of the reasons responses to the problem from all agencies have been pretty feeble so far. (It pertains to England, but the same team are currently undertaking a similar study on behalf of the Scottish Government. I doubt the findings will be all that different.
"I think this issue presents a MASSIVE challenge for all agencies involved in safeguarding children. Child protection policies and procedures are geared up to protecting children who have been harmed or are at risk of harm from their parents or someone in a parent/carer role. They simply aren't set up to deal with this problem.
"The young people involved don't always see what they are doing as harmful. They may see it as doing something "grown up" and like the kudos it gives them amongst their peers as well as the financial rewards. Older siblings or even parents may encourage or at least not discourage them. One 13 year old we worked with was very pissed off when the police got involved because it meant she got in trouble with her parents and cut off her supply line of phone credit, alcohol and cigarettes.
"It's often an older boyfriend who "grooms" them into sexual exploitation, not the stereotype old man in a dirty mac with sweeties. Agencies they come in contact may not notice anything particularly untoward about what's happening when it appears to be in the context of a "relationship."
"Attitudes of practitioners can also get in the way. I've heard senior social workers, teachers, youth workers, health workers and police officers fail to see a child at risk even when they know they are involved in potentially harmful activities. They often see the girls as "streetwise" or "bad eggs" rather than victims of child abuse.
"There needs to be a MASSIVE shift in understanding of the dynamics and process of child sexual exploitation amongst all professionals, and amongst parents as well as a far bigger emphasis on it within schools if this is to be seriously addressed.
"I think we also need to take a sober look at particularly how sexualised messages in popular culture effectively help to "groom" girls in such a way that they are perhaps more susceptible now to sexual exploitation than ever before."
'At least one Muslim member has explained why this kind of behaviour isn't sanctioned by her faith..'
KRITIQ, She has also explained that her faith is not a centrally organised one, and that anyone (any man that is) can lead prayers, issue fatwas, preach about interpretation of Hadith, the Koran, etc. Factions can split off, merge, drive out other points of view -- this is well documented in the case of Saudi Wahhabism. The most fanatical voice now has the wheel in Islam. What non-fanatics feel their faith is all about is completely irrelevant. The driving force behind Islam today is the Wahhabi sect.
also i think the race issue cuts both ways. I think it is racist that the Pakistani men targeted white girls as oppose to Asian girls..
Also the way the authorities are so ineffective some of the time because of being accused of the dreaded 'r' word that aligns one to being a heretic.
I think what makes me frustrated is that it took so long to stop the Rochdale ordeal because of the constraints i have outlined. it strangleholds the police and social services.
Of course there are wicked people in every religion etc. I just think the structure of Islam makes it hard for people to be accountable who are within it as others have pointed out.
"I think we also need to take a sober look at particularly how sexualised messages in popular culture effectively help to "groom" girls in such a way that they are perhaps more susceptible now to sexual exploitation than ever before."
As I did before, I take exception again to this.
This is a way of framing the problem that blames sexualisation of the victims for the behaviour of men towards them. This is absolutely the wrong way to look at the problem. What needs looking at is the attitudes of the perpetrators towards girls and women. Here the issue of Muslim attitudes to women and girls who are not Muslim ('Infidels') is 100% relevant. Also relevant in this context is the increasing acceptability among boys and men of pornography, the continued existence of rags like the Daily Mail and the Page Three phenomenon. In other words, the objectification of women, whether done because of a religious culture or because of lad culture/the vestiges of male privilege.
To get to the root of the problem we have to look at the attitudes of MEN and how it comes about that there are so many men willing to see women as less than them, less than human, existing only to serve their needs, to be props in their fantasies. We need to look at the inadequacy of men and the inability of men to obey the law. We need to look at the inability of men to see women as equal and deserving of respect. We need to identify what it is in the upbringing and the culture of men that makes the objectification and callous disrespect for women possible.
Girls have always been susceptible to sexual exploitation because they are vulnerable in almost every society. I agree with Mathanxiety that the problem lies with men, not the girls themselves. And of course the culture that permits men to carry out these atrocities.
This is not a Muslim-bashing thread. Some people here simply stated the truth: that there is a cultural issue here (on BOTH sides). If it continues to be ignored, lives will continue to be ruined.
Someone sent me this a few days ago I was shocked and stunned even given my own experiences. This thread makes me sad but not enough that i want to hide it.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
math is right as usual except for her "anti-family" thing; is it really right to quote Bishops from six decades ago opposing a healthcare system as "anti-family" when Catholics do the most pro-family work in the world and are unashamed to do so? All Christians are imperfect, God said as much, and these bishops made a mistake with their interpretation of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching; a principle Rick Santorum presented in a far better way less contradictory to the doctrine of "preferential option for the poor" in his election campaign; and his book "It takes a Family."
I wish Santorum had been engaged with intelligently on his beliefs for a just modern society where women had equality to men, but the traditional family is preserved: this time, with the end of patriarchal oppression and the aid of reasonable state support to prevent the misogynist mayhem that past "family values" approaches have created.
Instead it's- OH NO, YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH CATHOLIC SEXUAL TEACHING, ALL OF IT! EVIL RIGHT WING REACTIONARY BIGOT!- which is not what Santorum is at all. He did go too far by suggesting states should be allowed to criminalise adults having gay sex or using contraception, which would make the US the laughing stock of the world. But his heart was in the right place, and based on respect for CST about the poor, he went against his fellow Catholic Republicans to support a series of welfare provisions.
I really wish we had Santorum vs Jill Stein and people plumped for the legitimiste reactionnaire over the provocateur extreme-gauche Jacobin
Then Santorum could just let "his people" (heartland voters) secede if he couldn't get the laws he wanted past the Supreme Court or Senate. It may be illegal but nothing could be done to stop him or the secession if the GOP stuck together to reject impeachment and the army weren't going to pull a coup d'etat . Two nations. Let the coastal sophisticates and bon-viveurs join the EU, as someone suggested...
But in the real world, stuck with BO versus Mittens, I struggle to work out which would be worse and comfort myself with the fact I don't actually vote in US elections.
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmm, There's also this. Who knows the truth?
I haven't read the thread.
I just wanted to add some of my experiences, in London as a teenager.
Yes there are these gangs of Asian men. No they do not only target white girls.
It was common knowledge amongst me and my friends. However we just thought the girls were slags, we didnt get it. There are plenty of Asian, black etc girls that have been through this sort of thing. I can tell you of Muslim girls that have been groomed by these gangs too.
and these gangs were connected, you would randomly see boys from up north etc appear round.
These girls didnt know they were being groomed, they didnt get it.
The one thing that makes them all in common is they had low self esteem, they wanted validation, and belonging and acceptance and sought it in the wrong places.
Ah now there is always 2 camps to a story same as lennox the dog and the lemmings .. i'm off to read that page properly, thanks for the link
I wouldn't have quoted them except they did it again thirty years later when the Irish Government tried to introduce free healthcare for women and children up to age 16 after WW2 (The Mother and Child Scheme). Apparently that undermined the Family too.
You really can't say Santorum was wonderful except for the bits where he fell off the cuckoo edge of the right wing loony fringe.
Voters are not stupid and they know when they are dealing with someone who does not reflect their sensibilities or their values, which is what the American democratic electoral process seeks to elucidate from candidates; most would be aghast to see the rosy picture you paint come to pass. Most midwestern Americans would be completely gobsmacked at this:
'Then Santorum could just let "his people" (heartland voters) secede if he couldn't get the laws he wanted past the Supreme Court or Senate. It may be illegal but nothing could be done to stop him or the secession if the GOP stuck together to reject impeachment and the army weren't going to pull a coup d'etat . Two nations. Let the coastal sophisticates and bon-viveurs join the EU, as someone suggested... '
Do you live in the US? Do you have any idea how utterly bizarre this vision of yours is?
Shocking story. Why don't more people know about this? Had t heard Hollie's story either. How is not charging these men justifiable?
It's actually highly liberal Americans, and as far as I know always still living over there, that have suggested the "two-state solution". The red and blue zones are indeed fairly contiguous with most of the red in the less densely populated middle and south. I first heard it as a joke but more recently I've seen people say there are such large cultural differences between one part of the country and another- and they are only getting wider with both sides becoming paranoid in the polarisation- that it would be better for the USA to break into two.
Why do you think the Boston-San Fran-Seattle set call heartland/mainstream America "flyover country"? That term means bigoted, out-of-date rural dwellers who need the metropolitan sophisticates to tell them what to do, expand their government and attack the rights of parents, churches and unborn children they believe in. (I name those three cities because their public health departments are responsible for a Focus on the Family-blasted guide for teens which says people are "born" homosexual, they have no option to change, and how to have anal sex and other gay sex acts safely.)
"Flyover country" is as far from literally meaning places you rarely need to see except through a plane window (they don't open in mid-air, Mitt) as "urban culture" in a Rush Limbaugh diatribe is from literally meaning the way human beings' social systems, as a whole, have responded to the building of large towns and cities as settlements.
Both are dog-whistles. I'll accept the lunatic fringe of the GOP supporters dog-whistle against The Blacks, so why can you not see the fringe Dems- the type who'd vote Nader, Jill Stein, etc. if there was a chance of them winning- constantly dog-whistle assaults on heartland America and have zero respect for their values?
I've heard the Hollie story discussed in newsrooms - journalists have looked into it and concluded it doesn't stand up at all
Journalist judgement and integrity is not something i would like to comment on.. here journies, have a
Things, as it happened this thread was started by a journalist. Me. On here in my spare time, nothing to do with my job. For a long while, only a handful of other posters were interested.
Whatever you think about integrity (and we don't all work for the News of the World) there is a point in what Longtall's saying. If there was something real there in the story, journalists would be only too happy to run with it - nothing hacks like better than a great story. Sometimes you can't stand a story up because what looks interesting turns out to be nothing, or you suspect there is something there but no-one's talking and you can't get the evidence. Sometimes gossip is just gossip.
And I'm one too (obviously). What's your profession, hmm - perhaps I can start making wild assumptions about you off the back of it?
This was a while ago - but I think someone was sent the link and a colleague in my newsroom said that one of his former colleagues had devoted a lot of time to it and concluded it didn't stack up.
FOTF supports creationism, school prayer, corporal punishment of children, abstinence-only sex ed. It is associated with 'ministries' that seek to 'cure' the sexual orientation of gay men and women (Exodus International and Love Won Out).
May I infer from your last post that you support the FOTF agenda and you agree that gayness can be therapied away, or that it is s developmental aberration that can be prevented or cured?
Did you mean to link this?
And 'The Blacks'?
You may make wild assumptions about my profession. I am a traffic management and safety officer. Well was before taking time out to bring up DS2 lol.
I only said i wasn't going to comment on it. Paranoid much
And i even offered you a to dip in your
Math- I'm not nearly as extreme as James Dobson or Focus on the Family. He is the other side of the coin to the Boston/Seattle/SF sexual ultra-libertines, and both of them are wrong. I mentioned it as it's a well-known organisation on the right, mostly for its traditional views on sex, marriage and abortion and Christian advocacy. The more objectionable bits are not its "main" ministry. If Dobson is 10 on a social conservatism scale, and Marcotte is 0, I'm an 8.
I support teaching abstinence-plus sex ed, as already described- promote waiting till marriage as best option but don't just leave out talk of contraception. FOTF wrongly (according to studies) believe that just exposing teens to information about contraceptives will make them go out and have sex, a common belief on the far-right which has never been accurate. Most of the people I know who support abstinence accept that this is false, but most of the large organisations- Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the Abstinence Clearinghouse, etc.- continue to push it. Which upsets me, as it does nothing to help the cause and these Catholics or other types of Christian should know lying is a sin. I don't believe for one second they're all stupid enough to not know their claims are false on this one.
I couldn't support reintroducing corporal punishment: that's favoured by reactionaries, fascists (ex:BNP) and for a bad enough reason, and brought certain men into the teaching profession for darker reasons still. That's more Biblical literalism from the OT, spare the rod and all that. As is creationism, obviously. School prayer is another matter- I know it's currently ruled unconstitutional by the Establishment Clause, but could see a rationale for that being overturned, provided children aren't forced to take part. Public schools should not be allowed to be wholly religious but I support vouchers for use in religious private schools. The majority of Americans do in fact, by some way- so this is certainly a mainstream position.
As far as "The Blacks", I was saying that consciously about the racism of certain elements within the GOP which I don't condone. I did so because of the stuff I often read in the British mainstream and US liberal media linking Republicans to racism, in the context of that "flyover country" more commonly called the "heartland" by those who live there. I don't like either of their bigoted positions: the coastal elite saying "get with the times you backward insular racist homophobe dinosaurs" or the heartland saying "get off to Europe you socialist bleeding-heart sodomite-loving godless people." My point was these positions have became so entrenched that it might make sense for there to be two nations where each side could be broadly happy, instead of a pendulum swinging so far every four to eight years with the constant threat of extremism.
You and another poster did make the GOP-racism link several times on the thread for discussing the election. It's hardly my imagination.
I think they really believe every single thing they put out. Including the curing of gayness. (Michelle Bachman's husband 'treats' gays in his clinic).
School prayer was outlawed for very sound reasons. As was the minute of silence that pro-school prayer groups tried to push. As a Catholic, I would be most upset to see official school prayer pushed on my children unless in an RC setting. It was an RC Bishop of New York who was one of the first champions of removing prayer and religious education from the public schools, which were at that time being used as vehicles of proselytism by the majority religion. What prayers? To whom? I can understand the concern of Jews, atheists, Mormons, Orthodox Christians -- in fact anyone -- when faced with the prospect of school prayer in public school. Churches have survived and even thrived in the US without the official sanction of government.
The majority of Americans are not affected by the idea of vouchers for religiously affiliated schools because they are happy with the quality of their public schools. In the south, where Tea Party ideas have fallen on fertile ground, there are not that many religious schools, which tend to be Catholic or Lutheran, and therefore found in northeastern, western and midwestern cities and towns. It really is not possible to say that the question of vouchers enjoys much support. It doesn't impinge on enough lives to make people feel strongly one way or another about it.
You find preschools and kindergartens run by churches of various denominations but actual schools tend to be northern, midwestern and coastal. Those Americans whose education might benefit from being able to go to non-public schools tend to live in inner city areas. Many cities where vouchers were being touted as the answer to dismal schools are starting to academise their public schools, edge the teachers' unions out, provide educational choice for residents, and basically render the voucher question moot. Academisation means the schools remain somewhat under the control and oversight of the taxpayers (via the city school boards) which would not be the case if families could go with their vouchers to the RC diocesan parochial schools. The religious organisations tend not to want to be accountable to civil government bodies for how they educate students, so vouchers are seen as a very double edged sword.
Sadly, you have decided that the bark of the right is worse than its bite might be, and you seem to think the bark is all there is to it. The right supports corporal punishment of children and children are subjected to corporal punishment. It thinks people become gay because of domineering mothers and that gayness can be cured, or that straightness can be consciously chosen and a straight life happily followed. It wants Jewish and Catholic and Presbyterian and atheist children all reciting some version of the Our Father at home room time as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. It wants what Santorum campaigned for -- and it is not one bit bothered that Europe would not know whether to laugh or cry. That would be proof that it was doing fine thank you very much. Since the general trend of American history has been resistance to centrifugal force (by civil war if necessary) and since elections are characterised by desperate efforts by both sides to claim the middle and paint the opposition as extremist, it seems the idea of secession will sink like a lead balloon. The bits you think are too extreme are the heart of the programme the right wishes to persuade America to adopt.
The Heartland you mention contains stalwart Democratic states like Minnesota and Illinois, and large cities that deliver Democratic votes reliably every time there is an election. Minneapolis-St Paul, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Buffalo, St Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh... Many California cities rank among the top conservative voters. The south is the reliable conservative region, along with southern CA and Mormon areas of the west. The midwest is up for grabs.
I am on the right in the US. I absolutely oppose corporal punishment. I want religious education for all major world religions because it is relevant to the world we live in, but absolutely no worship.
I don't believe that homosexuality can be "cured" in all cases, but I do believe it is possible for many of those who are homosexual to gain enough interest in the opposite sex to have a mutually fulfilling heterosexual marriage. I have mixed feelings about the therapy side of it. Done right, I believe it could help. However, it would be very easy to do incorrectly
I'm honestly quite confused as to why we are frequently called racists. I am interested in what I believe are things that would be best for the entire country, and that includes minorities. I am concerned that some government policies meant to help them are actually doing more harm than good.
1)Voter ID laws, disproportionately keeping minorities out of the polling booth and based on fears of illegal immigrant votes for Obama.
2)Opposing affirmative action- an extensive history over four decades. Appropriating MLK's quote about "not being judged by colour of skin" to justify opposition to AA in the context of a workforce of people who went to segregated schools, who suffered institutionalised racism, just years after he was murdered left an especially bad taste in many anti-racists' mouths.
3)Talk of "states' rights"- associated with segregation in many people's minds.
4)Lee Atwater's comments on the Southern Strategy
5)Redistricting to counter black-majority districts
6)"English Only" bills, seen as anti-Latino racism
7)Denigration of ethnic studies professors, SPLC and NAACP as "sowing division" and talk of a "racism industry"
8)A lot of campaigns-worst was the Willie Horton ads, but racial stereotyping has been prominent.
9)The racist nastiness of much of the Tea Party. The "Birther" movement which many consider to be racist in itself
That's just the start. I know that not all Republicans are racist and the party as a whole does not deserve the tag but there are certainly more racists and bigoted bills/campaigns coming from them than from the Democrats since the Southern Strategy.
If you are on the right in the US then there is a lot of highly unpalatable bathwater you will have to take on board along with your particular baby.
Join the discussion
Please login first.