Suella Braverman thread 2

[AdamRyan]

As we filled up thread one eith our battling over whether it's feminist or racist to support Suella Braverman's weekend statements, I thought another would be good.

Here's some of what she said:

"What's clear is what we've seen is a practice whereby vulnerable white English girls, sometimes who are in care, sometimes in challenging circumstances, being pursued and raped and drugged and harmed by gangs of British Pakistani men who've worked in child abuse rings or networks. We've seen institutions and state agencies, whether it's social workers, teachers, the police turn a blind eye to these signs of abuse out of political correctness, out of fear of being called racist, out of fear of being called bigoted. And as a result, thousands, we are not talking small numbers, we are talking large numbers, thousands of children have had their childhoods robbed and devastated. And there are many of these perpetrators still running wild, behaving in this way. And it's now down to the authorities to track these perpetrators down, without fear or favour, relentlessly and bring them to justice"

Sunak has since rowed back on this and the Home Offices own research suggests there is not enough quality research to say any particular ethnicity is disproportionately involved in "grooming gangs"

Baroness Warsi (conservative) has called Braverman a "trump tribute act"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/suella-braverman-a-trump-tribute-act-says-former-tory-chair_uk_642e6833e4b001e12d70675d/

You’re so fucking disingenuous. Copy the first part of her article.

I transcribed that myself from her Sky News interview so it doesn't come from an article? You can copy some context if you think it's useful.

Since you created a new thread…

I wasn’t able to post about the fact certain people, such as yourself OP, are so hell-bent on defending their ethical model from the intrusion of reality, that it leads to double-standards and real world harms (such as men being treated as belonging to a sacred caste so their victims never get justice).

In this article it discusses how ‘Prevent’ has been rigged to defend this ethical model, to go after non-existent far right bogeymen, instead of protecting the public by going after those who actually present a danger to us.

"Challenging extremist ideology should not be limited to proscribed organisations but should also cover domestic extremists operating below the terrorism threshold who can create an environment conducive to terrorism," he said.
He also said there had been a "double standard", with the definition of extremist Islamist ideology too narrow and the approach to the extreme right-wing too broad, drawing in mainstream, "mildly controversial" commentary.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-counter-terrorism-strategy-needs-refocus-islamism-review-2023-02-08/

Ah the link didn’t work

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-counter-terrorism-strategy-needs-refocus-islamism-review-2023-02-08/

If we don’t want something similar to Brexit in magnitude, then these double standards need to stop. They obviously run through every organisation which has had any D&I training in the last couple of decades.
Priti Patel was thwarted from getting a handle on the policing of grooming gangs by similar ideologues.
Braverman is taking a strong stand against this ideological bullshit spread by well-paid D&I consultants. Thanks Suella.

My question is this. Why does Braverman suddenly pretend to care about these children, just a few weeks before the May elections? Why has the Home Office not take action on this issue for the past13 years?

Since it’s early in the thread, here is a link to the last one.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4776977-suella-braverman-vows-to-stamp-out-grooming-gangs-behind-organised-child-sex-abuse?page=40&reply=125212068

Priti Patel was thwarted from getting a handle on the policing of grooming gangs by similar ideologues

How was she thwarted and by whom? Do you have details, please?

I am tired, in the previous thread, some people linked to a piece originally published in the guardian where she voiced her frustration.

Thing is though, you can't deny this has happened. And yes white grooming gang exist but they don't have this specific issue of policing that fear of racism leads woke social services and police and la to say 13-16 year old white working class girls are choosing to be prostitutes and adult Pakistani men are their bf. They knew for years and ignored parents. It is because of fear of racism. It is.

sound like you Don't believe this happens and the authorities know and knew.

Thanks endlesstea will track it down.

I honestly don't think Braverman is sincere about this. I think she is using this to score political points. When did the Tories ever give a toss about vulnerable, disadvantaged young people from deprived backgrounds?

Let's see if the Home Office actually does anything meaningful to tackle grooming gangs.

@IClaudine the piece was written from a perspective critical of PP - she was frustrated that she was refused disaggregated statistics on the grooming gangs from the broader incidents of child abuse, and her attempts to get this information is smeared as ‘political’ in the piece.

Hmm.
He also said ""It is correct for Prevent to be increasingly concerned about the growing threat from the extreme right."
And the last para was head of MI5 saying

In this article it discusses how ‘Prevent’ has been rigged to defend this ethical model, to go after non-existent far right bogeymen, instead of protecting the public by going after those who actually present a danger to us

That's your interpretation

My interpretation is that he is saying that the definitions of who needs to be covered by Prevent should be the same regardless of if its far right or Islamist terrorists and at the moment it isn't.

There is no mention at all of far right bogeyman and how they don't exist. In fact :

Last November, Ken McCallum, head of the MI5 domestic spy agency, said Islamist militants remained its major concern, but warned that there had been a rise in far-right extremists seeking firearms.

How is it that the police are "woke" in Rotherham but not in London? I don't think the police anywhere are particularly effective on VAWG and it seems to me usually discussed that they are the opposite of woke.

And I wish you would stop using the term "sacred caste".

It seems logically contradictory to argue that a disproportionate amount of Pakistani men are prosecuted, so they are the problem, but they aren't prosecuted as they are a sacred caste.

It makes no sense and has weird connotations as we dont have a caste system in the uk.

Has Braverman said how she intends to disrupt child sex abuse by other perpetrators yet?

There are some good stats in here
49% of terror arrests last year were for far right plots

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64399335.amp

Terrorism is not an acceptable response to any "context".

If you call ordinary people on the centre right or centre left ‘far right’ when they speak truthfully about unpleasant consequences of political decisions they are living through, then you create that context where it didn’t previously exist - through your silencing, suppression, denial, minimising and glossing over their suffering. It only serves to piss people off and persuades no one. You are culpable.

That's the same kind of rhetoric that Isis/Al Qaeda would use to justify home grown Muslim plots, because the west made political decisions resulting in the death of innocent Muslims.

Whose culpable? The person who makes an "offensive" statement? Or the person who responds with violence?

Or does "freedom of speech" only work one way?

You really sound extreme to the point I'm thinking about reporting this thread to crimestoppers 😮

If the 49% of arrests didn’t actually make anyone safer, because they were focusing on arresting people who weren’t an imminent terrorist risk for political reasons, taking their eye off the ball where actual risks persist for political reasons - it isn’t the gotcha you think it is @AdamRyan - it’s double standards for political purposes - so people, such as yourself can keep your mental model in tact while the people present a genuine risk remain at large.

Presenting a genuine risk

That's the same kind of rhetoric that Isis/Al Qaeda would use to justify home grown Muslim plots, because the west made political decisions resulting in the death of innocent Muslims.

Whose culpable? The person who makes an "offensive" statement? Or the person who responds with violence?

Or does "freedom of speech" only work one way?

@AdamRyan - it seems as though you don’t like the part you play in stirring up hostility landing in your lap. It seems you don’t quite know what to do with yourself.

A balanced comment here from the NSPCC chief executive, stressing the importance of victim-centered care, the need for both funding for child victims and a functioning justice system.

“Child sexual exploitation by organised networks is one pernicious form of abuse and it’s welcome to see the Government focus on disrupting perpetrators and protecting victims. This must be backed up with funding for services to help child victims recover and support for a justice system that is struggling to cope.

“It’s also vital we remember that any child can be a victim of child sexual exploitation and adult perpetrators do not just come from one background. Sexual predators will target the most vulnerable and accessible children in society and there must be a focus on more than just race so we do not create new blind spots that prevent victims from being identified.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/home-secretary-suella-braverman-nspcc-pakistani-government-b1071735.html

Another perspective from the former chief crown prosecuter for north west England:

“What I’m really angry about is that nothing has been said about prevention.
“Fine, arrest more people, but the criminal justice system will fail them because we all know what the data is there one per cent conviction rates, but where’s the preventive work?
“Where’s the work in children’s services, social services, where’s the funding of children’s services, social services, youth services, community groups, NGOs?
“They’re all struggling. They all have massive workloads. The idea that they can suddenly provide support to more victims is just ridiculous with current resources.
“It tells me they’re not actually interested in the victims, it is all about the headlines, it is all about suggesting that they are tough on crime, when in fact, far from it, they’re not tough on crime nor the causes of crime.””

I would hope that any changes the government make focus heavily on prevention and victim support.