Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Suella Braverman vows to stamp out grooming gangs behind organised child sex abuse

1000 replies

IwantToRetire · 03/04/2023 00:30

The Home Secretary, writing in The Mail on Sunday, pledges to 'track down and punish the grooming gangs with the same sense of mission and determination' used to pursue the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, the black British teenager who was killed in a racially motivated attack at a bus stop in South London in 1993.

Ms Braverman, who was born in Harrow, in North-West London, to a Kenyan mother and Mauritian father, writes: 'The time has come to make right one of the greatest injustices seen in Britain in modern times. The systematic rape, exploitation and abuse of young girls by organised gangs of older men – and the disgraceful failure of the authorities to act despite ample evidence – is a stain on our country.'

A Buddhist, Ms Braverman describes the 'perpetrators' as 'groups of men, almost all British-Pakistani, who hold cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11928629/SUELLA-BRAVERMAN-mission-ensure-really-no-hiding-place-gangs-grooming-young-girls.html

I am not sure if this is just the DM take on what she said, or if it accurately reflects what she said.

If she did say this and not talk about how men of all cultures, given the opportunity, have and will exploit young women, then she is letting down all the women who are exploited.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
40
jgw1 · 04/04/2023 11:54

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 11:50

It looks like Priti Patel’s attempts to address it where thwarted by ‘politically correct’ interference, like we are seeing on this thread, too.

Is it possible that any attempt Priti Patel made to address the problem was thwarted by the 25% cuts to the Ministry of Justice budgets?

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 11:55

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 11:52

Great that you have such a grasp on her for the last 10 years. She only came to my attention recently. Quite the encyclopaedia of politicians- your mind.

It’s probably not true anyway. Every “fact” jgw has posted that I’ve looked up has been dead wrong. I can’t be arsed to look this up too.

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 11:56

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 11:54

Is it possible that any attempt Priti Patel made to address the problem was thwarted by the 25% cuts to the Ministry of Justice budgets?

Even in the guardian piece her frustration at not being able to focus in on these gangs for this reason is noted.

Whaeanui · 04/04/2023 11:57

Don't tell other posters that, they get terribly upset when it is suggested the government could have done something sooner.

Rubbish. Everyone has been talking about how f all was done for 40 years. The difference is you want to focus only on this governments past failings while the rest of us want to talk about this announcement and why it’s important to still address the issues of grooming gangs in those towns. Like I said, despicable that you continue to do this and deflect attention from the actual topic to discuss Tory failings in general. Labour ignored this problem too. Both parties have failed those girls.

ResisterRex · 04/04/2023 11:58

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 11:50

It looks like Priti Patel’s attempts to address it where thwarted by ‘politically correct’ interference, like we are seeing on this thread, too.

I noticed the evidence I posted of attempts by Patel and Javid to deal with this has been conveniently ignored, too.

Here it is again:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9070905/DAN-HODGES-reveals-inside-story-cover-abuse-young-girls.html

www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/04/no-asian-grooming-gangs-are-not-a-myth/

And here's the Champion/Corbyn link:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4801056/Now-Sajid-Javid-backs-MP-grooming-gangs-storm.html

Jonei · 04/04/2023 11:59

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 11:55

It’s probably not true anyway. Every “fact” jgw has posted that I’ve looked up has been dead wrong. I can’t be arsed to look this up too.

I wouldn't bother to look them up. It seems like a deliberate attempt to waste other people's time and energy.

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 11:59

Whaeanui · 04/04/2023 11:57

Don't tell other posters that, they get terribly upset when it is suggested the government could have done something sooner.

Rubbish. Everyone has been talking about how f all was done for 40 years. The difference is you want to focus only on this governments past failings while the rest of us want to talk about this announcement and why it’s important to still address the issues of grooming gangs in those towns. Like I said, despicable that you continue to do this and deflect attention from the actual topic to discuss Tory failings in general. Labour ignored this problem too. Both parties have failed those girls.

Brava 👏👏

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:01

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 11:39

So putting dozens of gangs, hundreds of gang members in prison over the last 13yrs is “nothing” right-o, I think I have the measure of you.

And there was no 25% cut. I posted the proof of that. There were smaller cuts 8 years ago to pay off war debts, but funding has been steadily increased since 2016.

I suggest you address your proof to the Law Society and everyone else who comments on the 25% cuts.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/autumn-statement-real-terms-cut-for-justice-spending/5114334.article

If you would like a real life illustration of what that means in practice. Three of the four magistrates courts in the county I live have been closed since 2010 as has the county court. What that means in practice is that it would take 5 hours to travel from one of the closed magistrates courts to the "local" remand court on public transport. So those on remand now routinely fail to turn up for their hearings, wasting court time, and creating more work for the police who then have to pick them up and take them to court.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt

Autumn statement: Real terms cut for justice spending

Treasury announces lower than inflation increase for MoJ, following chancellor's autumn statement.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/autumn-statement-real-terms-cut-for-justice-spending/5114334.article

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:08

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:01

I suggest you address your proof to the Law Society and everyone else who comments on the 25% cuts.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/autumn-statement-real-terms-cut-for-justice-spending/5114334.article

If you would like a real life illustration of what that means in practice. Three of the four magistrates courts in the county I live have been closed since 2010 as has the county court. What that means in practice is that it would take 5 hours to travel from one of the closed magistrates courts to the "local" remand court on public transport. So those on remand now routinely fail to turn up for their hearings, wasting court time, and creating more work for the police who then have to pick them up and take them to court.

Im trying very hard to stay civil.
Your writing “25% cut to Justice funds/budget” repeatedly is how ones refers to cuts in absolute terms. Always. And I am convinced you were actually saying this and know this based on our earlier exchanges on this figure and the data of the actual budget amounts that I posted.

If you are now claiming you were referring to real terms cuts, you should have said “25% cut in real terms” because real terms cuts are not budget or funding cuts at all. They are how we refer to funding not keeping up with inflation, regardless of whether funds were increased or cut in absolute terms.

AdamRyan · 04/04/2023 12:08

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 11:43

FFS.

This is an issue of naming now is it.

Abuse.

Abuse can be sexual - sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse can be abuse of children - child sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse can involve exploitation - sexual exploitation

Children can be sexually exploited - child sexual exploitation

It is okay when looking at abuse to hone in on one aspect, for example, focusing on child sexual abuse, even though physical or emotional abuse may also be a factor for some or that others are sexually abused as adults. It is still acceptable and useful, to sometimes cut a slice through a phenomena to focus in this way, to lead to meaningful and useful information.

Likewise, organised abuse between a group of perpetrators can be similarly whittled down or sliced in a certain way for meaningful and useful information.

A global religion where those in authority are organising to sexually exploit children within its properties or congregation, those children are members of that religion and the abusers have groomed the parents of those children using the religion, deserves a specific, targeted investigation. Quite a lot has already been done in the Catholic Church. There was a lot of resistance though, because the Catholic Church holds a lot of authority and police themselves may have been Catholics, reluctant to pursue- leaving the Church to deal with it ‘internally’ for far too long.

A religion where ordinary members, from a particular region, are organising to sexually exploit children who are not from their religion or region, they do not groom the parents, they groom the children directly, also deserves a specific, targeted investigation. Not much has really been done in the case of the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs though and the reticence from the police is not totally understood.

There is no way to get to the heart of these gangs by looking at the Catholic Church. The only things they have in common is that the perpetrator group internally shares a common religion and their victims are children.

It is a deflection tactic to bring up the Catholic Church when trying to get a handle on a completely different group with a completely different modus operandi and completely different beliefs about their entitlement to abuse their victims.

Its irrelevant. It’s whataboutery.

If your aim is reduce sexual exploitation of children, you need to look at all MOs and target them all (or biggest first, which in this case is white men)

If you somehow believe some victims deserve more protection, or some perpetrators deserve locking up more than others, then maybe your view would change.

I want all systematic abuse dealt with personally. That is not whataboutery on a thread about "stamping out grooming gambgs of organised sexual abuse".

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 12:09

They are how we refer to funding not keeping up with inflation, regardless of whether funds were increased or cut in absolute terms.

And I am suffering these same cuts to my own budget right now.

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:12

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 11:55

It’s probably not true anyway. Every “fact” jgw has posted that I’ve looked up has been dead wrong. I can’t be arsed to look this up too.

You mean like the widely accepted fact that the Justice system has had a 25% cut in real terms.
Why is it that some people insist on denying undisputable truths?

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 12:12

AdamRyan · 04/04/2023 12:08

If your aim is reduce sexual exploitation of children, you need to look at all MOs and target them all (or biggest first, which in this case is white men)

If you somehow believe some victims deserve more protection, or some perpetrators deserve locking up more than others, then maybe your view would change.

I want all systematic abuse dealt with personally. That is not whataboutery on a thread about "stamping out grooming gambgs of organised sexual abuse".

At this point I believe you are either arguing in bad faith, or are being wilfully dim because you don’t want to disrupt the crystalline geometry of your ethical model and be faced with a tricky moral dilemma.

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:13

AdamRyan · 04/04/2023 12:08

If your aim is reduce sexual exploitation of children, you need to look at all MOs and target them all (or biggest first, which in this case is white men)

If you somehow believe some victims deserve more protection, or some perpetrators deserve locking up more than others, then maybe your view would change.

I want all systematic abuse dealt with personally. That is not whataboutery on a thread about "stamping out grooming gambgs of organised sexual abuse".

WTAF? But everything (and everyone, ie Saville) that you listed on your whataboutery post has already been specifically targeted by the government and the relevant institutions!

This isn’t a case of CSE gangs being targeted first out of all MOs of sexual exploitation of children. Nor is this even a case of a certain ethnicity being targeted despite what the media is alleging with their inflammatory and out of context coverage.

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:14

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:08

Im trying very hard to stay civil.
Your writing “25% cut to Justice funds/budget” repeatedly is how ones refers to cuts in absolute terms. Always. And I am convinced you were actually saying this and know this based on our earlier exchanges on this figure and the data of the actual budget amounts that I posted.

If you are now claiming you were referring to real terms cuts, you should have said “25% cut in real terms” because real terms cuts are not budget or funding cuts at all. They are how we refer to funding not keeping up with inflation, regardless of whether funds were increased or cut in absolute terms.

I think you are now agreeing there has been a 25% cut in funding for the Ministry of Justice. I am glad we have made this progress.

If one were to be selective about it there was a 20% absolute cut in funding between 2010 and 2016, amounting to a more than 40% real terms cut.

AdamRyan · 04/04/2023 12:16

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 10:54

No. It’s not my job to educate you in the basics.

Also - I was responding to being told to educate myself so I knew why the church/sports orgs/schools/children's homes were irrelevant and therefore "whataboutery". I did that and still think they are relevant

How would you feel if Braverman had announced a crack down on Catholics, whose culture wasnt aligned with british values as they facilitated child abuse for years, and victims had not been believed for long enough?

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:16

EndlessTea · 04/04/2023 12:12

At this point I believe you are either arguing in bad faith, or are being wilfully dim because you don’t want to disrupt the crystalline geometry of your ethical model and be faced with a tricky moral dilemma.

Where is the tricky moral dilema in saying that all CSE should be investigated and dealt with and cutting the Justice system is not going to achieve that?

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:17

AdamRyan · 04/04/2023 12:16

Also - I was responding to being told to educate myself so I knew why the church/sports orgs/schools/children's homes were irrelevant and therefore "whataboutery". I did that and still think they are relevant

How would you feel if Braverman had announced a crack down on Catholics, whose culture wasnt aligned with british values as they facilitated child abuse for years, and victims had not been believed for long enough?

My response would be, why is she selecting one group and not trying to deal with all CSE.

AdamRyan · 04/04/2023 12:17

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:13

WTAF? But everything (and everyone, ie Saville) that you listed on your whataboutery post has already been specifically targeted by the government and the relevant institutions!

This isn’t a case of CSE gangs being targeted first out of all MOs of sexual exploitation of children. Nor is this even a case of a certain ethnicity being targeted despite what the media is alleging with their inflammatory and out of context coverage.

CSE gangs have been bought to justice too Confused

Orare you claiming there are no examples of systematic child abuse happening any more because we've dealt with them, apart from the pesky brown men?

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:17

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:12

You mean like the widely accepted fact that the Justice system has had a 25% cut in real terms.
Why is it that some people insist on denying undisputable truths?

I doubt it’s exactly 25%. You said the government decided to do 25% cut to their budget, I proved you wrong.

Now you’re saying 25% cut in real terms which is something completely different. And your word is mud with me. I’m utterly convinced after the BS you’ve been posting that if I did the calculations the real terms cut would not be 25% but some other figure and so fucking what…everyone and every organisation in this country has experienced a real terms cut due to the high inflation. Real terms cuts aren’t even the result of decisions by the government or anyone! No one can control inflation.

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:21

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:17

I doubt it’s exactly 25%. You said the government decided to do 25% cut to their budget, I proved you wrong.

Now you’re saying 25% cut in real terms which is something completely different. And your word is mud with me. I’m utterly convinced after the BS you’ve been posting that if I did the calculations the real terms cut would not be 25% but some other figure and so fucking what…everyone and every organisation in this country has experienced a real terms cut due to the high inflation. Real terms cuts aren’t even the result of decisions by the government or anyone! No one can control inflation.

Are you saying you don't think the government decide what to spend money on and how much to spend?
What is the point of the Treasury then? Do they spend all their time tending pot plants like Boris did in No 10?

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:25

AdamRyan · 04/04/2023 12:17

CSE gangs have been bought to justice too Confused

Orare you claiming there are no examples of systematic child abuse happening any more because we've dealt with them, apart from the pesky brown men?

Yes CSE gangs have been brought to justice as have every other type of CSA you listed in your whataboutery. So your point that all these other types are being ignored and overlooked is simply not true. And I do not understand why you are arguing against doing more to fight sexual exploitation of children.

You have to know that it is not realistic to advance on all fronts equally & simultaneously when combatting a societal problem. It’s rather like arguing we shouldn’t be doing more to fight sex trafficking unless we simultaneously do exactly the same more to fight domestic labour trafficking.

Youd have been one of those back in the 19th C arguing that women shouldn’t have property rights because we should be getting the vote first. Progress is progress. Don’t shit on it.

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:28

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:21

Are you saying you don't think the government decide what to spend money on and how much to spend?
What is the point of the Treasury then? Do they spend all their time tending pot plants like Boris did in No 10?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the government cannot decide real terms cuts as that is a calculation based on the real value of money as increased or decreased by inflation or deflation which is outside the control of the government.

jgw1 · 04/04/2023 12:29

L3ThirtySeven · 04/04/2023 12:25

Yes CSE gangs have been brought to justice as have every other type of CSA you listed in your whataboutery. So your point that all these other types are being ignored and overlooked is simply not true. And I do not understand why you are arguing against doing more to fight sexual exploitation of children.

You have to know that it is not realistic to advance on all fronts equally & simultaneously when combatting a societal problem. It’s rather like arguing we shouldn’t be doing more to fight sex trafficking unless we simultaneously do exactly the same more to fight domestic labour trafficking.

Youd have been one of those back in the 19th C arguing that women shouldn’t have property rights because we should be getting the vote first. Progress is progress. Don’t shit on it.

On the subject of sex traffiking will you join me in condeming the Prime Minister and Home Secretary for announcing their intention to remove those who have been traffiked from the protections afforded by the modern slavery legislation?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread