Why nothing on the BBC about the grooming gangs?

[Tenbywonder]

So then, a letter has been sent to the Secretary of State for Justice:

https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/140241/202602117397159

Nothing much has materialised yet in terms of an official UK Government enquiry, but an MP led enquiry has been moving forward at some pace and the emerging details and sheer scale and proliferation of what has happened seems unfathomable. An excerpt from a judge’s sentencing remarks in one such rape gang trial paints a truly disturbing picture:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s!AbZo!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9af08984-8e32-411b-a677-415f8247a92c_1654x870.png_

So why is what is likely the most far-ranging and sordid scandal in UK modern history, with many 1,000's of abused, drugged and raped young British girls, (mostly underage) getting hardly any attention from our mainstream media?

The grooming gang scandal extends way beyond Rotherham. Rochdale, Blackburn, Bradford, Leeds, Luton, Birmingham, London, etc, almost everywhere where there are large communities of Muslim men living alongside deprived vulnerable white girls. It is estimated that there are thousands of perpetrators and tens of thousands of young girls that have suffered horrific sexual abuse.

Absolutely agree but pp brought up the Jay Rotherham report specifically.

I'm looking at it from a practical point of view for those attempting to run an inquiry.

Of course I can see why they say different things.

If they conflict with one another, to the point that some refuse to work with named individuals while others will walk if that individual is not involved, that's a problem in terms of making the inquiry work?

I never said I was correcting you, I’m having a conversation/discussion.

I think it’s useful to know what has been done in the past and question why nothing has been done so far except the announcement of more inquiries when the proposals from what has been published in the past haven’t been implemented.

I absolutely agree that past commitments should have been adhered to, but I think a narrower focus is needed than the previous national inquiry.

Well yes, hence some of the survivors want to participate in the Lowe one. Sammy Woodhouse is an inspiration.

Can we call them what they are? Rape gangs. Torture gangs.
They are very far removed from the word ‘grooming’.
They don’t ‘groom’.
They abduct.
Force drugs on victims.
Rape and torture them.
Evil fucking bastards.

I agree. I’ve tried to stop using the term.

I absolutely agree with the change of title. But many of these girls were led to believe they were the girlfriend of one particular man, who they went with willingly at first, and that was one excuse the authorities used for not acting even though the very act of having sex with someone so young was rape.

We need to go back to the situation we had in the past, where any adult having sex with a girl under 16 was committing rape no matter how willing that girl was.

Was it recently English law that sex with an under 16 yo was rape?

The offence of unlawful iintercourse seems to cover the bases albeit that sentences should be longer in the most egregious case.

It was decades ago when I was that sort of age myself, but if I recollect, then if the rapist was 18 or over and the victim 14 or under it was rape, but my memory could be faulty. If I'm remembering wrong then I'd still like that to be the rule.

Got you.

I think there was a defence for unlawful intercourse, not the same thing as rape, where the age difference was not great and the male had an honest belief that the female was 16.

If she was under 13 it was Statutory Rape even if she had every appearance of willing and enthusiastic participation.

Which was about right.

Thank you, I was misremembering 13 as 14.

It is and has been for a very long time a criminal offence for a man to have sex with a girl under 16, whether she is willing or not. Yet the police cherrypick which laws and offences they will deign to charge men for. They have no right to choose which laws to implement, but they do. They are a disgrace, but nothing could be worse than the actual perpetrators in the rape gangs.

Yes, they should be named after what they do, not how they do it.

It completely minimises the horror of what the young girls have endured.

Very true!

There is already outcry that the inquiry won't explore religious and racial elements of the abuse. This article is about the demands on the inquiry and what they should include. Please share widely.
https://groominggangjustice.uk/

And the inimitable Maggie Oliver was in court yesterday to pursue a judicial review to force the government to act on the recommendations from the sexual abuse inquiry (trumpeted by pp as the “inquiry” that’s already taken place into the rape gangs) of a few years ago, which they are stalling on. She was successful yesterday in getting to proceed to a full hearing.