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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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'?
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.
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.
Journalist judgement and integrity is not something i would like to comment on.. here journies, have a
I've heard the Hollie story discussed in newsrooms - journalists have looked into it and concluded it doesn't stand up at all
"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?
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.)
Shocking story. Why don't more people know about this? Had t heard Hollie's story either. How is not charging these men justifiable?
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?
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 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.
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmm, There's also this. Who knows the truth?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.