Was anyone else outraged by the clerics comments on Question Time last night?

[mrsruffallo]

All the blame was focused on the victims involved in the recently reported grooming case. Apparently the way the girls were dressed and the fact they were out at night was the causen for them being repeatedly gang raped.
And what on earth were the comments about 'having sex for a packet of crisps'??
I am appalled.

Was I the only one watching???

I wasn't watching, and from what you say, I'm very glad about it.
Dear oh dear oh dear.

I was too mrsruffalo - almost as much by his tone as by what he said.

I was pleased to see that both David Dimbleby and (from memory) Peter Oborne challenged him specifically on that point and made it clear that they thought he was victim blaming. He backtracked and "clarified" in a horribly patronising way, but it was clear what he meant.

Good to see the young girl in the audience saying that women should have the right to wear what they want.

I think it was the Lord Oakeshott who confronted him primarily. Oborne was bangong on aout sex for a packet of crisps.

I thought he wasn't the only one who seemed to be indicating that the victims had somehow led these poor, innocent men on. They were so busy desperately trying not to bring the fact that all the men were Asian to the debate that they forgot no matter the colour or religion a criminal is a criminal and should be duly punished.

Those poor girls are still being let down by society. It is attitudes like this that saw the girl who first reported it be ignored.

Blimey I am so very very glad I didn't see this.
I cannot believe this response to the most appalling catalogue of sexual exploitation.

I missed it last night, but agree with TwoIf that it is shocking that these men would still be out there were it not for a change of CPS head.

Yes, the cleric did desperately try to back peddle after his comments caused a murmur of disapproval in the audience but it was too late. It was actually Caroline Spelman who specifically and quoted the judge and said it was not about race but about sexual exploitation of young girls, which was endemic and in different parts of the country.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01hmwqb/Question_Time_10_05_2012/

If anyone wants to see it it's the second question in.

As I understood it, last night, what he was trying to say (and he conceded he'd not expressed himself terribly well) was that it was a shame that society was condoning or supporting the lack of family support for some children,(or supportive measures for children cared for ouside the family), leading to the inevitable consequence of these vulnerable children are being exploited. It was about society's contribution to the early sexualisation of children, for example. I don't think he was blaming the children themselves.

A disproportionate percentage of the debate centred on the victims, rather than the utterly contemptible rapists. I totally agree that young girls should be given the knowledge, self respect and ammunition to tell these w*nkers to F off and not fall for their pathetic tripe and that parents and care homes have a duty of care, but I am sick and tired of the focus on getting girls to avoid being raped rather than on stopping bastard rapists by, at the very least, putting them out of the public domain until they are too senile to get it up.

Sorry - that's a rant, but really.....

Was anyone NOT outraged by this? I was following the hashtag on Twitter and there was a general sense of disgust at what Oborne and the vicar guy were saying.

There's been some good blogging about it today and this piece in the Mirror by the Fleet Street Fox.

I wasn't watching but DH was, and he called me to come and watch after the comment was made. I thought it was really good that a member of the audience then criticised it and said it didn't matter what girls were wearing. That then gave the panel an opportunity to modify their statements, although the cleric still didn't really revise his comments.

I was watching and was absolutely disgusted. It just proves that most religion is mysogynistic and female blaming.

I thought his point was that if we expect and allow a confusion between adulthood and childhood, i.e. in this case girls of 12 and 13 having similar clothes and behaviour to women 18-34 (not sure who is dressing like who tbh!) that is then associated with sexual behaviour elsewhere in the media (+ porn?), then it is easy to see how behaviours and expectations cross over too.

I don't think he was blaming victims, more blaming how we sell women as a society, and how girls are expected to be women at 13 in terms of what clothes shops and mags say, and how certain forms of attractiveness eg make-up, short dresses, high heels are sold as synonymous with sexualised activity.

I don't agree, but I think there is something wrapped up in his point that is worth trying to think about. I mean if girls wore sackcloth until puberty.... oh hang on.. what an arse!

I saw it....and was fecking furious!!!!

A prime opportunity there to condemn the sexual exploitation of children and women, and instead we got "They put themselves in that position! and "for a packet of crisps"....11 and 12 year old girls' put themselves in a position to be raped????!!! Jesus Wept

What a missed opportunity that was to defend abused children and women.

But this needs a multi-pronged approach, don't you think? It's not just about exposing and haranguing the perpetrators. It is also about the education of youngsters and the caregivers to recognise what is reasonable/safe behaviour.

I don't think anyone here would be happy for their preteen/ early teenager to be wearing sexually provocative clothing. Would'nt we all be saying, 'You can't go out in that!'. That's because we all know the risks exist. Exploitation of vulnerable girls and women is 'endemic' as was said last night. It needs responsible, education and appropriate condemnation/ custodial sentances for the culprits.

It is not safeguarding youngsters enough to say they can wear exactly what they want, which could be something they've just seen on a pop video. Telling them how to dress appropriately is as important as telling them to not walk home alone/ avoid certain areas, keep in touch etc..

Worried betty, I'm absolutley with you. Lets not chuck the baby out with the bath water

Is there any evidence at all that

a. these girls were wearing 'sexually provocative clothing'?

b. child sex offenders have a preference for children wearing 'sexually provocative clothing'?

What he was saying was that children are not being allowed to be children for long enough to be able to make safe judgements sometimes; ie what they wear and where and how long they are out at night. It was about the safeguarding of the behaviour, not just what they wear but demanding society to let children be children and that involves protecting them in all ways.

But what kind of outfit puts children at greater risk? What kind of clothing is preferred by child sex offenders?

I'm not saying it's just the clothing. It's teaching reponsible behaviour.

We all know there are reckless drivers out there. If someone ran over a child and received a suitable custodial sentance, would that mean that we don't teach our children how to cross the road safely? It needs, as I said, a multi-pronged approach, not just outrage but a sensible, unified and responsible attitude to what is an ever present hazard.

So what is the responsible way for a 13 year old to be out at night without an adult in public spaces?

I must admit I was watching it with my jaw dropped but I do think grammar's interpretation of what he was trying to say might be correct. But really, in that forum, don't you think a cleric, of all people, would have rehearsed properly what he wanted to say so it could not be interpreted as "they were asking for it"?

With the best will in the World you are being very naive Grammer. A lot (not all of the girls) were from neglected, chaotic upbringings. They are very vulnerable and predatory pedophiles can spot this a mile off. If they were wearing baggy clothes that covered them from neck to feet then these men would still know that they would be easily exploited.

Instead of blaming unloved children for being raped perhaps you should point the finger at the men who thought it was perfectly acceptable to rape children and then give them a packet of crisps as compensation.

There is no excuse for their behaviour. None. The vast, vast majority of men would not have done what they did no matter what the girls wore or how late out at night they were.

the kinds of girls who are subject to this kind of sexual exploitation are usually very vulnerable, it has sod all to do with what they wear. i have dealt with many many many many girls in this position, they are not usually from happy loving homes, but often in care, or left to the care of an elderly grandparent who means well but hasnt a clue what they are doing.

i do at least 2 referrals a week to social services and the child protection unit for girls at risk of sexual exploitation.

we recently had an operation in the police for girls being groomed. Its rife in certain towns among certain communities.