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'.
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.
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
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.