Best Of

"Grooming gangs" sounds like bunches of marauding barbers.

Let's be clear; these are organised gangs of child rapists, the vast majority of whom are of Pakistani heritage.

Sadly, some on the left don't even want to acknowledge that simple fact.

The facts are that the overwhelming majority of both individuals and gangs are white British.

Certain ethnic groups are over represented among offenders, compared to their (minority) numbers in the general population.

That’s just stating the obvious. Of course the overwhelming majority of almost every thing in Britain are white British, as the overwhelming majority of people are

It would be even more terrifying if it wasn’t so

But there haven’t been Gangs of White British men taking it in turns to rape under age non white British girls on an industrial scale and, if there had, I don’t think in the 21st century it would have been covered up for fear of upsetting white British people.

The grooming gangs horror shows that multiculturalism doesn’t work on two levels; firstly that victims are chosen on a religious or racial basis means it doesn’t work on the streets, and secondly that supporters of multiculturalism look the other way when it’s proven to cause harm shows it doesn’t work within the authorities

On topic, govt have clearly mishandled this.
But it's a bit mad that 4 women will resign if Philipps stays and 4 win resign if she goes.
You can't run an inquiry like that. It sounds lovely to put the victims in charge, but i suspect the reason it isnt usually done is that it's not very practical.

I also think it's a mistake to say that you can't have a former police officer or social worker leading the thing. The individuals in question may be wrong, but it's not a conflict of interest imo, it's pretty typical to have ex-whatever doing an inquiry into the failings of a particular industry.

I'd have them on the panel for their expertise.

If an inquiry had been held much earlier then it could be ok. The Jay Report was done by a social worker after all.

But the longer you wait, the greater the expectations and therefore the more important it is to have someone who cannot be accused of partiality.

I have said this a million times before but our biggest failing is that we do not investigate properly at the start. So the problems become v v bad. We then deny and delay for far too long. And by the time we finally try to do the right thing it is far too late, no-one will be held accountable, it will take far too long and cost far too much and achieve damn all. Rinse and repeat.

Proper investigations done early followed by effective action are the answers. I spent bloody ages drumming this into the head honchos where I worked and got there eventually. And it bloody well worked and they were bloody grateful that I did what I did.

This is what government needs to do. It's been told by lots of people. And there are plenty of people with the knowledge and experience who could show them how it's done.

But they don't bloody well want to.

So we have this ludicrous public inquiry industry and a system of Potemkin justice which achieves the square root of fuck all. Grrrr!!!!

Off now to find brick wall to bang head against ....

The Dark Side of Fitness Apps: Study Says They Can Do More Harm Than Good

https://www.newsweek.com/fitness-apps-study-says-they-can-do-more-harm-than-good-10913928

(based on research by a colleague)

I can understand this. There is a very strong motivational factor that sits behind fitness technology which I think is actually really quite helpful, but the downside of that is it is very easy to become consumed by Data and fail to listen to your body.

This isn’t the same thing as the diet apps but my goodness the metrics that smart watches capture now are both a blessing and a curse.

I am on a 177 day streak for getting my 10k steps and it does drive me to go out and walk around the streets in the dark when I otherwise couldn't be arsed. That is probably a good thing. It also gets me to focus on my calorie burn which is also a good thing.

But it doesn't really stop me from eating too much or drinking too much. Weight loss has been very slow and may have ground to a halt well above a "healthy" weight.

On balance I find the Fitbit a good thing. But anyone who thinks that is the answer, problem solved, is deluding themselves. At the risk of stating the obvious it helps you find a healthier lifestyle, it is not a life style in itself.

How many of those steps are pacing up and down the courtroom haranguing the defence? Or does that only happen on the telly?

Only on the telly, I'm afraid. IRL the proceedings are recorded so you are stuck by your microphone and not able to wander.

Thanks for the header @Cyclefree. Hope you are staying strong and keeping well

This whole disgraceful episode is caused by people not wanting to be seen agreeing with people they usually disagree with, nor being prepared to upset those they have taken sides with by speaking truth to them. Moral cowardice in the extreme, and something I thought we were all taught at an early age not to do via Nursery tales and fables.

It’s also people not being willing to admit, or even consider, they’ve made a mistake; what if multiculturalism was just a bad idea?

Better than I have been recently. Problems with low white blood cell count. Now looking better. Most of the time I treat this with magnificent contempt, black humour and try to ignore it. Mostly I succeed. But sometimes it really gets me down. Not looking forward to winter TBH - dark days are bad enough without this as well. Also I was given a real ticking off by the nurse for not calling the helpline when I had a fever.

Still, I'm going to Edinburgh next week to see the Andy Galsworthy exhibition, staying at the New Club which I'm told is very lovely and having some lovely lunches with friends. I've lost 16 kgs in recent months so have treated myself to new clothes which I can show off. An ill wind etc.,.

We have had the unfortunate experience in Scotland recently of Lord Bracadale feeling the need to stand down from the Sheku Bayoh inquiry which has thrown it into total chaos with multiple other resignations. This was an inquiry into a death in custody. The reason for this was that he had had meetings with the family of Mr Bayoh, essentially seeking to persuade them not to withdraw from the very long running and expensive process.

It shows a few different things that are relevant here. Firstly, these things are a nightmare to chair. Any concept of a judge merely being fair, impartial and an intelligent inquirer has almost died. Their management has become political. Secondly, we have an ever increasing concept of victors justice. Only those who are deemed to be "onside" are allowed to judge. If I wanted to cause trouble I might mention Hillsborough in this context. This was also the problem with the 2 proposed chairs of the gangs inquiry even although both had a considerable amount of relevant experience. Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to the many victims of these horrors, we seem to be allowing them too much say in the process rather than merely the result. This is unhelpful. Fourthly, we are also allowing too many rights and considerations to those who might be criticised slowing down such inquiries to the point they simply come too late. In the Bayoh case it was objections by the Police Federation that resulted in Lord Bracadale standing down.

I tend to agree on your third point. It arises because those who set up these inquiries/investigations simply do not understand how best to run them and what is really needed in order to give confidence to all relevant stakeholders. There has to be rigorous independence and an utter determination to find out all the facts - no matter who this offends or affects. That is tough to do and those running investigations (I have done thousands, large and small, criminal, civil, regulatory, multi-jurisdictional etc.,) need to have a combination of ruthlessness, clear-eyed focus on the evidence, curiosity and empathy. It is not an easy combination. But it is essential both to give confidence and make sure the inquiry is robust.

What goes wrong is when we allow sentimentality to distract from this and I think something like this has happened here. It is understandable because these girls have been appallingly let down by pretty much everyone. But the answer to that is to have a proper inquiry not burden them with making the decisions about how it is to be conducted. They will have views and they should be listened to but they are witnesses - not investigators and, brutal as it is to say this, they too have a conflict. They cannot and should not be the decision makers. Any more than, say, whistleblowers should be determining how an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation should be run. It is easy to see why this has happened because the endless refusal to look into this properly has infuriated them and everyone else. And so there is this over-correction. But it is not the right way to go about things. And it is not right above all for the victims because only a properly run investigation can do that.

This would have been avoided if the politicians had (a) a proper group which knew how to run investigations (b) had thought about how this one should be run from the start (c) had not made false or over-promises to the victims in order to win PR points and (d) were not acting like cowards or panicking or worrying about Ministers' egos and doing everything at the last minute to get the story off the front pages. They are, as is all too common working backwards from what they would like the result to be and finding a way to get there.

To run such an enquiry requires an iron will, as well.

Plenty of people will be sidling up to the eventual chair at social events or luncheons, to give them vague warnings of how the "wrong" findings or even evidence will affect their (the chair's) chances of jobs, a knighthood, having a grass roots campaign launched against them...

I recall the methodical, "quiet little chats" that were used against journalists and editors carrying the original story.

The people behind that are still around.

An iron will, you say. Maybe also someone who doesn't give a toss about titles, speaks her mind, doesn't suffer fools gladly, actually knows how to do investigations and write reports, only needs sufficient payment to support an expensive gardening habit and, for understandable reasons, will ensure the inquiry is done in record time, etc.

As for the chance to talk to journalists and share stories, well ........

"Grooming gangs" sounds like bunches of marauding barbers.

Let's be clear; these are organised gangs of child rapists, the vast majority of whom are of Pakistani heritage.

Sadly, some on the left don't even want to acknowledge that simple fact.

The facts are that the overwhelming majority of both individuals and gangs are white British.

Certain ethnic groups are over represented among offenders, compared to their (minority) numbers in the general population.

How many white rape gangs' crimes are covered up to avoid cultural offence, or whatever

Jeffrey Epstein? And it does seem to reach the UK, to what degree we are currently unsure.

As I think @DavidL will tell you, since Mrs May (to the considerable horror of some) commanded that all reports be taken seriously and investigated, there has been a tidal wave of cases in courts.

And cases going back decades, in Scotland, are going to involve which ethnicities?

It was *all* being covered up and ignored.

25 years ago now I called at the Scottish bar and, not having a lot of work, did my fair share of Crown junioring, that is helping in the prosecution of cases in the High Court. I was involved in dozens of cases. There were many murders, a lot of drugs and a fair bit of serious violence. I do not recall ever helping out in a rape case. They existed but they were a tiny part of the High Court's business.

Now, 25 years later, I am an Advocate Depute. More than 80% of all cases in the HC are sexual with the vast majority of them involving rapes. It is an incredible change. Part of this is because complaints of such behaviour are taken far more seriously than they have ever been. More resources have been thrown at these cases including the routine use of DNA evidence. The law has been changed to allow corroboration to be much more easily established by distress and recent statements. Police, where certain indicators are present, have gone looking for former partners of the accused who have never come forward, often disclosing a catalogue of shocking crimes that go back decades. So many men who have got away with disgusting, violent and selfish behaviour for decades now find themselves being belatedly held to account.

This is undoubtedly a good thing. There are mutterings now that the pendulum has arguably swung too far. Decisions of the Supreme Court are awaited on that. It is essential that trials are fair. But it is equally essential that it is made clear to these men that their behaviour and attitudes are repugnant and that they will be severely punished for their crimes.

We have had the unfortunate experience in Scotland recently of Lord Bracadale feeling the need to stand down from the Sheku Bayoh inquiry which has thrown it into total chaos with multiple other resignations. This was an inquiry into a death in custody. The reason for this was that he had had meetings with the family of Mr Bayoh, essentially seeking to persuade them not to withdraw from the very long running and expensive process.

It shows a few different things that are relevant here. Firstly, these things are a nightmare to chair. Any concept of a judge merely being fair, impartial and an intelligent inquirer has almost died. Their management has become political. Secondly, we have an ever increasing concept of victors justice. Only those who are deemed to be "onside" are allowed to judge. If I wanted to cause trouble I might mention Hillsborough in this context. This was also the problem with the 2 proposed chairs of the gangs inquiry even although both had a considerable amount of relevant experience. Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to the many victims of these horrors, we seem to be allowing them too much say in the process rather than merely the result. This is unhelpful. Fourthly, we are also allowing too many rights and considerations to those who might be criticised slowing down such inquiries to the point they simply come too late. In the Bayoh case it was objections by the Police Federation that resulted in Lord Bracadale standing down.

I tend to agree on your third point. It arises because those who set up these inquiries/investigations simply do not understand how best to run them and what is really needed in order to give confidence to all relevant stakeholders. There has to be rigorous independence and an utter determination to find out all the facts - no matter who this offends or affects. That is tough to do and those running investigations (I have done thousands, large and small, criminal, civil, regulatory, multi-jurisdictional etc.,) need to have a combination of ruthlessness, clear-eyed focus on the evidence, curiosity and empathy. It is not an easy combination. But it is essential both to give confidence and make sure the inquiry is robust.

What goes wrong is when we allow sentimentality to distract from this and I think something like this has happened here. It is understandable because these girls have been appallingly let down by pretty much everyone. But the answer to that is to have a proper inquiry not burden them with making the decisions about how it is to be conducted. They will have views and they should be listened to but they are witnesses - not investigators and, brutal as it is to say this, they too have a conflict. They cannot and should not be the decision makers. Any more than, say, whistleblowers should be determining how an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation should be run. It is easy to see why this has happened because the endless refusal to look into this properly has infuriated them and everyone else. And so there is this over-correction. But it is not the right way to go about things. And it is not right above all for the victims because only a properly run investigation can do that.

This would have been avoided if the politicians had (a) a proper group which knew how to run investigations (b) had thought about how this one should be run from the start (c) had not made false or over-promises to the victims in order to win PR points and (d) were not acting like cowards or panicking or worrying about Ministers' egos and doing everything at the last minute to get the story off the front pages. They are, as is all too common working backwards from what they would like the result to be and finding a way to get there.

We have had the unfortunate experience in Scotland recently of Lord Bracadale feeling the need to stand down from the Sheku Bayoh inquiry which has thrown it into total chaos with multiple other resignations. This was an inquiry into a death in custody. The reason for this was that he had had meetings with the family of Mr Bayoh, essentially seeking to persuade them not to withdraw from the very long running and expensive process.

It shows a few different things that are relevant here. Firstly, these things are a nightmare to chair. Any concept of a judge merely being fair, impartial and an intelligent inquirer has almost died. Their management has become political. Secondly, we have an ever increasing concept of victors justice. Only those who are deemed to be "onside" are allowed to judge. If I wanted to cause trouble I might mention Hillsborough in this context. This was also the problem with the 2 proposed chairs of the gangs inquiry even although both had a considerable amount of relevant experience. Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to the many victims of these horrors, we seem to be allowing them too much say in the process rather than merely the result. This is unhelpful. Fourthly, we are also allowing too many rights and considerations to those who might be criticised slowing down such inquiries to the point they simply come too late. In the Bayoh case it was objections by the Police Federation that resulted in Lord Bracadale standing down.

I tend to agree on your third point. It arises because those who set up these inquiries/investigations simply do not understand how best to run them and what is really needed in order to give confidence to all relevant stakeholders. There has to be rigorous independence and an utter determination to find out all the facts - no matter who this offends or affects. That is tough to do and those running investigations (I have done thousands, large and small, criminal, civil, regulatory, multi-jurisdictional etc.,) need to have a combination of ruthlessness, clear-eyed focus on the evidence, curiosity and empathy. It is not an easy combination. But it is essential both to give confidence and make sure the inquiry is robust.

What goes wrong is when we allow sentimentality to distract from this and I think something like this has happened here. It is understandable because these girls have been appallingly let down by pretty much everyone. But the answer to that is to have a proper inquiry not burden them with making the decisions about how it is to be conducted. They will have views and they should be listened to but they are witnesses - not investigators and, brutal as it is to say this, they too have a conflict. They cannot and should not be the decision makers. Any more than, say, whistleblowers should be determining how an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation should be run. It is easy to see why this has happened because the endless refusal to look into this properly has infuriated them and everyone else. And so there is this over-correction. But it is not the right way to go about things. And it is not right above all for the victims because only a properly run investigation can do that.

This would have been avoided if the politicians had (a) a proper group which knew how to run investigations (b) had thought about how this one should be run from the start (c) had not made false or over-promises to the victims in order to win PR points and (d) were not acting like cowards or panicking or worrying about Ministers' egos and doing everything at the last minute to get the story off the front pages. They are, as is all too common working backwards from what they would like the result to be and finding a way to get there.

To run such an enquiry requires an iron will, as well.

Plenty of people will be sidling up to the eventual chair at social events or luncheons, to give them vague warnings of how the "wrong" findings or even evidence will affect their (the chair's) chances of jobs, a knighthood, having a grass roots campaign launched against them...

I recall the methodical, "quiet little chats" that were used against journalists and editors carrying the original story.

The people behind that are still around.

The Covid enquiries and the endless questions from the respective groups for 'Justice' drive me mad. I am sure that many feel very passionately that their loved ones died because we didn't lock down fast enough, or because X or Y or Z. Having them asking their 'gotcha' questions is not aiding the process of working out what happened and what to do in future. Because of the adversarial nature of it all, those giving evidence clearly feel that they are 'on trial' and this is not helping anybody.