Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

"Not in the public interest"

26 replies

SapatSea · 25/02/2020 10:03

The Government have decided not to release their much vaunted research into the characteristics of grooming gangs as it would not be in "the public interest" and that ministers need a "safe space" to formulate policy.

No one seems to want to address the "can of worms" the grooming scandal has opened up (although it has been sporadically reported on for decades). The MSM largely shun it. The police wouldn't touch it for decades as it was "just too big" and would inflame community divisions. Thousands of girls thrown under the bus again, bottom of the pile (under men, religion, diversity etc). Not hopeful of change.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 25/02/2020 10:07

But why

It is in public interest

Why hiding it

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/02/2020 10:10

What that says is that they don't consider "the public" to include working class girls. Which is part of how shit like that was able to happen and to continue in plain sight for so long.

FloralBunting · 25/02/2020 10:14

What kittens said.

sarahjconnor · 25/02/2020 10:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RuffleCrow · 25/02/2020 10:16

Wtf?! - women and girls are 51% of the public!

littlbrowndog · 25/02/2020 10:22

Gawd Sarah.

So glad you are doing this. CSE affects you through all of your life

sarahjconnor · 25/02/2020 10:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FredaFrogspawn · 25/02/2020 10:55

That is the least these poor girls and women should be given to help make up for the abuse. Sounds like a great project.

NonnyMouse1337 · 25/02/2020 11:07

I don't understand why this is not in the public's interest. What could possibly be in the report that would be problematic??

sarahjconnor that's utterly shameful that you have been denied funding. It's the least that we as a society can do for women and girls who have had their lives destroyed by such sexual exploitation.

Beamur · 25/02/2020 11:11

Not in the public interest to undermine confidence in the institutions meant to protect vulnerable women and girls maybe if I'm feeling cynical. Or perhaps it's so these gangs don't get wise to the tools that could be used to tackle them if I'm feeling generous.

zanahoria · 25/02/2020 11:18

ministers need a 'safe space' now?

NonnyMouse1337 · 25/02/2020 11:22

ministers need a 'safe space' now?

Yes it's amazing the way these sorts of words and phrases are thrown about these days.

BovaryX · 25/02/2020 11:23

This is outrageous. How is this not in the public interest? Grooming gangs operated for years in full view of state agencies. The failure to protect those girls was a failure of the state. Why isn't the report into that failure made public? This is not acceptable

bellinisurge · 25/02/2020 11:52

"Safe space" is a term understood in analysis of bits of the freedom of information act.
Somebody make a Freedom of information Act request for this and the information commissioner and, eventually, a court can decide whether it's in the public interest, not the government.

bellinisurge · 25/02/2020 11:57

If the independent cared about this , they would lodge an appeal against this refusal. If they don't, somebody else can make the same request and lodge an appeal with the Information Commissioner if they get the same refusal

theflushedzebra · 25/02/2020 13:10

Not in the public interest? More like they don't want the public to know how great the failings were.

On the same day as the Westminster Abuse Inquiry reported that Ministers protected "high profile" child abusers like Cyril Smith, too.

And at the same time as safe spaces for women & girls are being eroded, the Ministers declare they need a safe space to talk about the abuse of young women & girls and "formulate policy." Huh.

You couldn't make it up.

hoodathunkit · 25/02/2020 13:36

Horrifying but unsurprising

The cops and quacks who squandered millions investigating non-existent satanic VIP paedophile rings have not been investigated and some have been promoted.

A good example is Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse, who now works at the NCA as Director General of Operations

Rodhouse was previously involved in the catastrophic investigations based on the false allegations of paedophile fantasist Carl Beech

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/operation-midland-steve-rodhouse-commander-who-led-bungled-investigation-faces-call-to-quit-rz5jwx50t

It is truly bizarre and shocking that he has been promoted to such a prestigious position.

Especially when one considers his role in NFAing investigations into Prince Andrew in relation to Epstein's crimes

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7542949/Police-chief-ran-VIP-child-abuse-inquiry-charge-inquiry-Jeffrey-Epstein.html

I feel very sorry for ordinary police officers, most of whom are doing an almost impossible job, when there are so many dubious persons in higher ranks. Don't even get me started on PCCs, of which more to follow

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost · 25/02/2020 13:41

Why hiding it

Because someone very big is at the top of it.

bellinisurge · 25/02/2020 14:13

"In the public interest " is very specific language from the Freedom of Information Act.
As already said Suggest someone makes a request for it and take it all the way. The cynic in me says that the Independent were just after a story about themselves getting told "no".
In law , this would not be the final "no".

definitelygc · 25/02/2020 14:20

Of course it's in the public interest. I reckon the clue is in this sentence:
"The information could be misleading if made public and used out of context"

Which means there's some explosive stuff in there that they don't want splashed all over the tabloids. God knows what it could be, I dread to think.

ahenderson270 · 25/02/2020 14:42

Sorry if I'm being thick .. I'm not sure I'm understanding and asking for help to .. are the reasons it isn't in the public interest to share it down to the fact that a lot of the research suggests that the particular type of grooming and rings this research involved are from minority groups and it's feared that more division amongst already divided communities will derive from releasing the information?

If I'm wrong I'm sorry - I'm not saying I agree .. just trying to grasp what they're claiming is their reason

definitelygc · 25/02/2020 14:55

@ahenderson270 I think the short answer is that we don't know. I imagine that will certainly be a factor. There may well be other things in the report that will provoke a public outcry e.g. police collusion. We know that these gangs were reported to the police many times over a number of years and they did nothing about it.

ahenderson270 · 25/02/2020 15:00

@definitelygc I see - I honestly don't feel qualified to form an opinion the issues surrounding provoking racism in already divided communities however covering up where services have been lacking is systemic and of course needs addressing .. I imagine this is a wrought subject with no clear answer.. no one wants racist vigilantism but a police force with so little integration is equally as frightening

ahenderson270 · 25/02/2020 15:01

Integrity **