Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Some of the tumescent (quite literally in some cases) posts about Kamala Harris on PB today are best read on an empty stomach.
I have nothing against the lady, she seems quite nice. But let's rein it in just a tad.
It is the Kamalagasm. And it’s as awks as anyone climaxing in public
However, in this case it can be forgiven. Whatever your opinions, the prospect of Trump v Biden 2.0 was fucking dismal as shit. So I share some of the ebullient relief
I still deeply dislike both parties. The Dems for their Wokeness, Trump because he’s Trump. But I sense Woke is in retreat and Trump is still an evil old fuck? Who knows…
I’d like a sane hard right but NATO-friendly GOP candidate. That’s not on offer. The offer is Trump
Eesh. I’d reluctantly vote for Kamala
Either way, the incoming President won't dislike the UK as much as the outgoing one, so that's nice.
Is Kamala not a Britophobe then? That'll be a nice change.
Fascinatingly, both her parents (mother India, father Jamaica) were subjects of the British Empire. She’s very British, in a peculiar way
Our rainy archipelago continues to cast an outsize shadow on the world
This does NOT mean she will be Brit-o-philic, of course. Quite possibly the opposite
Yea, it can go either way. Obama had a Kenhan parent didn't he, and hated us. Trump had a Scottish parent, and didn't much like us. Neither of Biden's parents were British, and he loathed us. Maybe it can't go either way.
I disagree. I think Trump is quite the Anglophile
The others, yes
Well, it's certainly not nutual, is it?
Trump represents most of the human failings particularly loathed in Btitain. Charmless, graceless, humourless, a bully and a coward. A crook, a coarse and vulgar braggart who would never stand his round...the list is long.
So America's Gordon Brown then.
Come on, I didn´t vote for the guy, but one-to-one Brown is actually charming and no fool. He also has had his share of personal tragedies and cannot in any way be described as a braggart. Even Brown´s political opponents (me included) would regard Trump comparisons as a very cheap shot.
That was pretty good, they should definitely bring her back. Have her alongside Shane Gillis as Trump, as they’re obviously not going to use Alec Baldwin this time around.
I’m not sure anyone will ever top Tina Fey as Sarah Palin though, perhaps the best political impersonation of all time.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
After Leon's relentless assault, the sun sets on the Biden presidency, so Leon returns to familiar Rochdale territory and in a taxi.
Mr. Monksfield, was it a three line whip? I would've thought backing a finance measure in the Labour manifesto would be.
King's Speech vote is understood to be a vote of confidence. Slightly weird because of the amendment thing, but it's an reasonable point.
Still, the Witless Whipless Wonders have got the publicity and irrelevance they crave, and now they can say whatever they like.
It was good to see that the length of suspension was made clear - which I don't remember being so explicit before.
Of course all 7 are very likely to vote against the Government on other matters so the Labour majority is now 14 less on a permanent basis... But SKS has got rid of a number of left wing problems for at least a while...
Labour have the wrong priorities in not scrapping the shameful 2 child limit. Though there is an upside for Starmer in being so morally wrong in that he gets to sack a load of “why are these” Labour MPs who now get to sit in solidarity with magic grandpa on the back bench of the chamber.
Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Some of the tumescent (quite literally in some cases) posts about Kamala Harris on PB today are best read on an empty stomach.
I have nothing against the lady, she seems quite nice. But let's rein it in just a tad.
It’s not just here. As I posted yesterday the MSM seems to be losing its mind too. She is being treated as a celebrity rather than a politician. Sky news, BBC news, channel 4 news even ITV news are just treating her with a reverence they seem to reserve for the latest A list luvvie doing a press round promoting whatever dreary movie their plugging.
One puff piece saying she’s perfectly suited to the presidency for dancing, badly, with some kids.
Nothing on policy or possible policy positions or any of the challenges ahead.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
That would be approximately every female.
From memory of last time this came up, the maths is 1400 in Rotherham, and that's about one percent of the country, so the total nationwide is about 100000.
Except it isn't, because that extrapolation doesn't work, for reasons that ought to be obvious to readers of a blog where we talk about polls all the time.
1400 is 1400 too many, but it's curious that smart people continue to push such an obviously incorrect line.
Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Some of the tumescent (quite literally in some cases) posts about Kamala Harris on PB today are best read on an empty stomach.
I have nothing against the lady, she seems quite nice. But let's rein it in just a tad.
It is the Kamalagasm. And it’s as awks as anyone climaxing in public
However, in this case it can be forgiven. Whatever your opinions, the prospect of Trump v Biden 2.0 was fucking dismal as shit. So I share some of the ebullient relief
I still deeply dislike both parties. The Dems for their Wokeness, Trump because he’s Trump. But I sense Woke is in retreat and Trump is still an evil old fuck? Who knows…
I’d like a sane hard right but NATO-friendly GOP candidate. That’s not on offer. The offer is Trump
Eesh. I’d reluctantly vote for Kamala
Either way, the incoming President won't dislike the UK as much as the outgoing one, so that's nice.
Is Kamala not a Britophobe then? That'll be a nice change.
Fascinatingly, both her parents (mother India, father Jamaica) were subjects of the British Empire. She’s very British, in a peculiar way
Our rainy archipelago continues to cast an outsize shadow on the world
This does NOT mean she will be Brit-o-philic, of course. Quite possibly the opposite
Yea, it can go either way. Obama had a Kenhan parent didn't he, and hated us. Trump had a Scottish parent, and didn't much like us. Neither of Biden's parents were British, and he loathed us. Maybe it can't go either way.
I disagree. I think Trump is quite the Anglophile
The others, yes
Well, it's certainly not nutual, is it?
Trump represents most of the human failings particularly loathed in Btitain. Charmless, graceless, humourless, a bully and a coward. A crook, a coarse and vulgar braggart who would never stand his round...the list is long.
So America's Gordon Brown then.
Whether you are a Labour voter or not (I’ve got you down as a “no” there) there way Brown faced significant personal tragedy is an example to us all. Your characterisation of him as a coward (at the very least) is the sort of graceless uber partisan personal invective that we (and I include myself in this - I am often guilty of it) should try to avoid.
Labour have the wrong priorities in not scrapping the shameful 2 child limit. Though there is an upside for Starmer in being so morally wrong in that he gets to sack a load of “why are these” Labour MPs who now get to sit in solidarity with magic grandpa on the back bench of the chamber.
Labour know there isn't the money is provide every wishlist item that exists and removing the 2 child limit requires 3% added to NI to balance the books.
Phrase it like that and see how many tax payers continue to support the idea...
Who has also commented on JD Vance's assaults on Cat Ladies.
Larry the Cat @Number10cat Trump's pet pooch James Vance has attacked cat ladies, which in turn is an attack on cats. I've got bad news for you Jimmy: women vote, cat lovers vote. You need to find some charisma and substance real fast or it's obvious who'll be getting the blame from Daddy in November... https://x.com/Number10cat/status/1815757873818845455
Suspect that Larry the Cat's account has been hacked. Hardly seemingly for a member of HMG to be engaging in a political cat fight beyond the realm.
Trust Larry to maintain a dignified silence, However, IF J,D. Vance ever comes calling in Downing Street, expect the claws to be out. OR at very least a warning hiss.
I don’t think you’re familiar with Larry the Cat’s Twitter (unofficial) account. It seems several people here aren’t. It is not a real account, Larry doesn’t actually tweet, the account was very critical of the last Government for years.
Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Some of the tumescent (quite literally in some cases) posts about Kamala Harris on PB today are best read on an empty stomach.
I have nothing against the lady, she seems quite nice. But let's rein it in just a tad.
It is the Kamalagasm. And it’s as awks as anyone climaxing in public
However, in this case it can be forgiven. Whatever your opinions, the prospect of Trump v Biden 2.0 was fucking dismal as shit. So I share some of the ebullient relief
I still deeply dislike both parties. The Dems for their Wokeness, Trump because he’s Trump. But I sense Woke is in retreat and Trump is still an evil old fuck? Who knows…
I’d like a sane hard right but NATO-friendly GOP candidate. That’s not on offer. The offer is Trump
Eesh. I’d reluctantly vote for Kamala
Either way, the incoming President won't dislike the UK as much as the outgoing one, so that's nice.
Is Kamala not a Britophobe then? That'll be a nice change.
Fascinatingly, both her parents (mother India, father Jamaica) were subjects of the British Empire. She’s very British, in a peculiar way
Our rainy archipelago continues to cast an outsize shadow on the world
This does NOT mean she will be Brit-o-philic, of course. Quite possibly the opposite
Yea, it can go either way. Obama had a Kenhan parent didn't he, and hated us. Trump had a Scottish parent, and didn't much like us. Neither of Biden's parents were British, and he loathed us. Maybe it can't go either way.
I disagree. I think Trump is quite the Anglophile
The others, yes
Well, it's certainly not nutual, is it?
Trump represents most of the human failings particularly loathed in Btitain. Charmless, graceless, humourless, a bully and a coward. A crook, a coarse and vulgar braggart who would never stand his round...the list is long.
So America's Gordon Brown then.
It's libellous to suggest that someone is a sexual abuser and fraudster.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Romania arrested Andrew Tate. Which gives their justice system a gold star from me.
And we jailed the #wholetruthfive for daring to tell the truth on climate change. Not even a bronze for us 😢
Surely Vance's former anti-Trump views were already well known when Trump picked him?
Yes, they were, but to a degree, that is part of the system. Kamala ran against Biden. Half a dozen colleagues will have stood against whoever will be the next Conservative leader.
But with Vance there are said to be other issues. As I posted two days ago, Trump was already said to be showing buyer's remorse. For a start, Vance was probably selected to run against Joe Biden who is now out of the race. He does not balance the Republican ticket or deliver new states (and look at how this is said to be a consideration for Kamala's VP choice, and how eight years ago Mike Pence appealed to Evangelicals and Never-Trumpers). Then, Trump was said not to like Vance speaking as if he, Vance, were on top of the ticket and running to be President.
And as you imply, perhaps Trump had not realised quite how anti-Trump Vance had been.
Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Some of the tumescent (quite literally in some cases) posts about Kamala Harris on PB today are best read on an empty stomach.
I have nothing against the lady, she seems quite nice. But let's rein it in just a tad.
It’s not just here. As I posted yesterday the MSM seems to be losing its mind too. She is being treated as a celebrity rather than a politician. Sky news, BBC news, channel 4 news even ITV news are just treating her with a reverence they seem to reserve for the latest A list luvvie doing a press round promoting whatever dreary movie their plugging.
One puff piece saying she’s perfectly suited to the presidency for dancing, badly, with some kids.
Nothing on policy or possible policy positions or any of the challenges ahead.
It's been that was ever since I can recall. And it's what makes a lot of people vote.
Jimmy Carter (apart from the dancing), got quite similar coverage half a century back. Though most people remember him for losing to Reagan - also covered as a celebrity - four years later.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Romania arrested Andrew Tate. Which gives their justice system a gold star from me.
And we jailed the #wholetruthfive for daring to tell the truth on climate change. Not even a bronze for us 😢
What 'truth' do you think they were telling? Preferably in their own words.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
Not just Rochdale though. Up and down the country.
This was the most recent one in Newcastle. There have been others up here. When the main perpetrator in this one was acquitted at a prior trial the BBC ran a puff piece on him at the time which allowed him to call the victim racist and play the victim.
Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Some of the tumescent (quite literally in some cases) posts about Kamala Harris on PB today are best read on an empty stomach.
I have nothing against the lady, she seems quite nice. But let's rein it in just a tad.
It’s not just here. As I posted yesterday the MSM seems to be losing its mind too. She is being treated as a celebrity rather than a politician. Sky news, BBC news, channel 4 news even ITV news are just treating her with a reverence they seem to reserve for the latest A list luvvie doing a press round promoting whatever dreary movie their plugging.
One puff piece saying she’s perfectly suited to the presidency for dancing, badly, with some kids.
Nothing on policy or possible policy positions or any of the challenges ahead.
Her dancing was fine.
As for vacuous celebrity Presidential candidates, Trump is the daddy. And why don't we mock Trump dancing?
Buttigieg: Vance is a regrettable choice because he is somebody who was at his most convincing and effective when he talked about how unfit for office Trump is. And he is not explained any reason other than of course, his obvious interest in power, why he changed his mind https://x.com/Acyn/status/1815918594661966049
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
It was a rather wider matter than just Rochdale. KLF(JAM)s Its Grim Up North gives a reasonable list as I can't be bothered to.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
Not just Rochdale though. Up and down the country.
This was the most recent one in Newcastle. There have been others up here. When the main perpetrator in this one was acquitted at a prior trial the BBC ran a puff piece on him at the time which allowed him to call the victim racist and play the victim.
I see that Robert Peston is saying that the true scale of the mess the previous Government's left finances in will be revealed next week after Rachel Reeves asked Departments to report what areas of their spending weren't actually budgeted for.
Seems the figure is £50bn but Robert doesn't say which bits are 1 off issues (RAAC schools, blood contamination payments...) and which ones are annual commitments.
Mr. Romford, over a hundred, I think, of the Rotherham victims were male. They tend to get ignored.
That's a good point: and as I recall, the report said that was an underestimate as many male victims were understandably not keen to come forward.
Also, many of the victims were Asian; again, the numbers are uncertain.
This 'white girls in Rotherham' hides as much as it unveils. The truth is that several groups of (allegedly mainly) men from Asian cultures abused anyone they could, an not just sexually. And others in their 'culture' knew about, and ignored this, as did many in wider authority, And as ever, the cover-up made things worse.
Another factor that is not talked about enough IMO is that people knew this was going on, and did not report it. After one of the official reports was released, the BBC interviewed a man from the area (I cannot remember if it was Rochdale or Rotherham), who said he had been offered young girls, but had rejected the offer. When asked why he had not reported it, he seemed to think it was an odd question.
Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Some of the tumescent (quite literally in some cases) posts about Kamala Harris on PB today are best read on an empty stomach.
I have nothing against the lady, she seems quite nice. But let's rein it in just a tad.
It is the Kamalagasm. And it’s as awks as anyone climaxing in public
However, in this case it can be forgiven. Whatever your opinions, the prospect of Trump v Biden 2.0 was fucking dismal as shit. So I share some of the ebullient relief
I still deeply dislike both parties. The Dems for their Wokeness, Trump because he’s Trump. But I sense Woke is in retreat and Trump is still an evil old fuck? Who knows…
I’d like a sane hard right but NATO-friendly GOP candidate. That’s not on offer. The offer is Trump
Eesh. I’d reluctantly vote for Kamala
Either way, the incoming President won't dislike the UK as much as the outgoing one, so that's nice.
Is Kamala not a Britophobe then? That'll be a nice change.
Fascinatingly, both her parents (mother India, father Jamaica) were subjects of the British Empire. She’s very British, in a peculiar way
Our rainy archipelago continues to cast an outsize shadow on the world
This does NOT mean she will be Brit-o-philic, of course. Quite possibly the opposite
Yea, it can go either way. Obama had a Kenhan parent didn't he, and hated us. Trump had a Scottish parent, and didn't much like us. Neither of Biden's parents were British, and he loathed us. Maybe it can't go either way.
I disagree. I think Trump is quite the Anglophile
The others, yes
Well, it's certainly not nutual, is it?
Trump represents most of the human failings particularly loathed in Btitain. Charmless, graceless, humourless, a bully and a coward. A crook, a coarse and vulgar braggart who would never stand his round...the list is long.
So America's Gordon Brown then.
Come on, I didn´t vote for the guy, but one-to-one Brown is actually charming and no fool. He also has had his share of personal tragedies and cannot in any way be described as a braggart. Even Brown´s political opponents (me included) would regard Trump comparisons as a very cheap shot.
Brown was a dud PM, and he certainly made some crass errors of judgment (coughEcclestonecough).
But he wasn't mad, and he wasn't a criminal.
And while his actions after the 2010 election were extremely misguided, they bear no comparison to Trump's efforts to stage an actual coup.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Romania arrested Andrew Tate. Which gives their justice system a gold star from me.
And we jailed the #wholetruthfive for daring to tell the truth on climate change. Not even a bronze for us 😢
What 'truth' do you think they were telling? Preferably in their own words.
The problem is they weren't telling people anything - they were just blocking the M25...
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
It was a rather wider matter than just Rochdale. KLF(JAM)s Its Grim Up North gives a reasonable list as I can't be bothered to.
No - please do. An accusation of this magnitude needs at least a link. Unless you’re not telling the truth. Which I don’t think you are.
Buttigieg: Vance is a regrettable choice because he is somebody who was at his most convincing and effective when he talked about how unfit for office Trump is. And he is not explained any reason other than of course, his obvious interest in power, why he changed his mind https://x.com/Acyn/status/1815918594661966049
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Romania arrested Andrew Tate. Which gives their justice system a gold star from me.
And we jailed the #wholetruthfive for daring to tell the truth on climate change. Not even a bronze for us 😢
Mr. Romford, over a hundred, I think, of the Rotherham victims were male. They tend to get ignored.
That's a good point: and as I recall, the report said that was an underestimate as many male victims were understandably not keen to come forward.
Also, many of the victims were Asian; again, the numbers are uncertain.
This 'white girls in Rotherham' hides as much as it unveils. The truth is that several groups of (allegedly mainly) men from Asian cultures abused anyone they could, an not just sexually. And others in their 'culture' knew about, and ignored this, as did many in wider authority, And as ever, the cover-up made things worse.
Another factor that is not talked about enough IMO is that people knew this was going on, and did not report it. After one of the official reports was released, the BBC interviewed a man from the area (I cannot remember if it was Rochdale or Rotherham), who said he had been offered young girls, but had rejected the offer. When asked why he had not reported it, he seemed to think it was an odd question.
For much the same reason that no one reported it if you were sat in a pub in Belfast and someone got shot.
Well, one thing is for sure now. Kamala will bring far more energy and vibrancy to the Dem campaign than Biden had any hope of mustering even on one of his good days.
Just watched the Harris speech.
It’s doing nothing to contradict my view that I’ve had for some time that Vice President was not the right role for her.
She is a world away from that awkward figure who sorta hid away and popped up at the odd event to spout stream of consciousness gobbledygook. She looks like she’s found her stride.
She is never going to be the greatest orator, and don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of road ahead, but the contrast is really stark. Makes you wonder where this Kamala Harris has been hiding for 4 years.
I'm getting a real "Everyone suddenly burst out singing" vibe which I have never had from politics before. Sort of thing the dimmer lefties apparently got from the smarmy murderous Blairfest of 1997.
Partially but it also reminds me of the attempts to deify Gordon Brown in the summer of 2007.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
It was a rather wider matter than just Rochdale. KLF(JAM)s Its Grim Up North gives a reasonable list as I can't be bothered to.
No - please do. An accusation of this magnitude needs at least a link. Unless you’re not telling the truth. Which I don’t think you are.
There are definitely more instances than just Rotherham. And the inaction by police and social services was disgraceful.
But to get to the specific number being waved around, you need scandals as bad as Rotherham everywhere. In Reading and Richmond (both of them) and Royal Tunbridge Wells. And to say that is silly and to keep saying it is worse than silly.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
Not just Rochdale though. Up and down the country.
This was the most recent one in Newcastle. There have been others up here. When the main perpetrator in this one was acquitted at a prior trial the BBC ran a puff piece on him at the time which allowed him to call the victim racist and play the victim.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
That would be approximately every female.
From memory of last time this came up, the maths is 1400 in Rotherham, and that's about one percent of the country, so the total nationwide is about 100000.
Except it isn't, because that extrapolation doesn't work, for reasons that ought to be obvious to readers of a blog where we talk about polls all the time.
1400 is 1400 too many, but it's curious that smart people continue to push such an obviously incorrect line.
The 1400 figure comes from the Jay report, but that was also a projection based on reviewing 66 case files.
To say there is not robust data is merely a fact. Misogyny and sexual abuse wasn't restricted to Rotherham of course, and we had a report just yesterday that 1 in 12 women are affected each year including 696,000 sexual assaults per year.
So those 4 children were all under court orders since April to stay with extended family, and last Thursday was because there was a fear of them being removed from the country.
"The court heard the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK, and it could be difficult for them to return to Britain."
Why are we trying to keep them in the country?, no doubt at taxpayers expense for welfare payments as well as all the agencies time.
Not like they are going to North Korea. I thought Romania are esteemed allies who subscribe to all human rights nostrums as EU members, so let them go, send Romanian Embassy a report that they are going and tell them the Romanian Social Services might want to read it then close the case.
Of course a lot of work and money for various professionals and lawyers at taxpayers expense if they are prevented from leaving.
Because - and I don’t know the facts of this case - they are vulnerable children at risk.
There is a moral duty to intervene to protect them
The UK government also has a moral duty to not impoverish the citizens of the UK by pointlessly and expensively trying to better the lives of everyone in the world; and also to not destroy the urban culture and trust of UK society by importing seven billion people a year, many of them openly contemptuous of our values
I fear these other duties have been forgotten to such an extent the UK is now beyond saving - for its own citizens
Don't be silly. You really, really can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners and a fortiori by what lengths it goes to to prevent the abuse, torture, murder etc of its children (and these children are as much citizens as anyone else is)
Yes indeed. We allowed 100,000+ underage white girls to be raped by racist Muslim grooming gangs, because we were afraid of “inflaming community tensions”. THAT is how Britain tries to “prevent the abuse of its children”. By literally ignoring the greatest crime in a century
There are 220,000 people in Rochdale, more or less. Are you suggesting nearly half its population are survivors of this sexual abuse case or are you pulling figures out of your arse for effect, to inflame tensions yourself? I’m going to assume the latter.
It was a rather wider matter than just Rochdale. KLF(JAM)s Its Grim Up North gives a reasonable list as I can't be bothered to.
No - please do. An accusation of this magnitude needs at least a link. Unless you’re not telling the truth. Which I don’t think you are.
The number was a calculation by Alastair Meeks.
Now if you don't agree with it perhaps you could give your own estimation.
THREE-WAY Kamala Harris 42% Donald Trump 38% RFK Jr. 8%
MoE +/-3%
And we’re off. I do suspect in the end it’s not going to be close. As I’ve always said what does a convicted felon who’s had to pay millions to a woman he’s sexually assaulted and who was prepared to let a mob murder his own running mate have to offer swing voters?
Labour have the wrong priorities in not scrapping the shameful 2 child limit. Though there is an upside for Starmer in being so morally wrong in that he gets to sack a load of “why are these” Labour MPs who now get to sit in solidarity with magic grandpa on the back bench of the chamber.
Labour know there isn't the money is provide every wishlist item that exists and removing the 2 child limit requires 3% added to NI to balance the books.
Phrase it like that and see how many tax payers continue to support the idea...
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. We have run child-inhibition and child-unfriendly policies for many years and now have so few children we have to import Eastern Europeans to breed babies for us. Babies are good things not bad things.
Comments
I’m not sure anyone will ever top Tina Fey as Sarah Palin though, perhaps the best political impersonation of all time.
Of course all 7 are very likely to vote against the Government on other matters so the Labour majority is now 14 less on a permanent basis... But SKS has got rid of a number of left wing problems for at least a while...
One puff piece saying she’s perfectly suited to the presidency for dancing, badly, with some kids.
Nothing on policy or possible policy positions or any of the challenges ahead.
From memory of last time this came up, the maths is 1400 in Rotherham, and that's about one percent of the country, so the total nationwide is about 100000.
Except it isn't, because that extrapolation doesn't work, for reasons that ought to be obvious to readers of a blog where we talk about polls all the time.
1400 is 1400 too many, but it's curious that smart people continue to push such an obviously incorrect line.
I make an exception for Trump. Fill your boots.
Phrase it like that and see how many tax payers continue to support the idea...
But with Vance there are said to be other issues. As I posted two days ago, Trump was already said to be showing buyer's remorse. For a start, Vance was probably selected to run against Joe Biden who is now out of the race. He does not balance the Republican ticket or deliver new states (and look at how this is said to be a consideration for Kamala's VP choice, and how eight years ago Mike Pence appealed to Evangelicals and Never-Trumpers). Then, Trump was said not to like Vance speaking as if he, Vance, were on top of the ticket and running to be President.
And as you imply, perhaps Trump had not realised quite how anti-Trump Vance had been.
Jimmy Carter (apart from the dancing), got quite similar coverage half a century back.
Though most people remember him for losing to Reagan - also covered as a celebrity - four years later.
This was the most recent one in Newcastle. There have been others up here. When the main perpetrator in this one was acquitted at a prior trial the BBC ran a puff piece on him at the time which allowed him to call the victim racist and play the victim.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855
https://thecritic.co.uk/newsnight-and-the-rapist/
It will be less of a change for Rishi who often used to question Starmer as if it were LotoQs each Wednesday.
Kim Jong-un anticipates Donald Trump's reelection
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=379213
As for vacuous celebrity Presidential candidates, Trump is the daddy. And why don't we mock Trump dancing?
https://youtu.be/XXN8xxCxA5s?si=_w56k6ZZdVqbrbIn
Buttigieg: Vance is a regrettable choice because he is somebody who was at his most convincing and effective when he talked about how unfit for office Trump is. And he is not explained any reason other than of course, his obvious interest in power, why he changed his mind
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1815918594661966049
Seems the figure is £50bn but Robert doesn't say which bits are 1 off issues (RAAC schools, blood contamination payments...) and which ones are annual commitments.
Also, many of the victims were Asian; again, the numbers are uncertain.
This 'white girls in Rotherham' hides as much as it unveils. The truth is that several groups of (allegedly mainly) men from Asian cultures abused anyone they could, an not just sexually. And others in their 'culture' knew about, and ignored this, as did many in wider authority, And as ever, the cover-up made things worse.
Another factor that is not talked about enough IMO is that people knew this was going on, and did not report it. After one of the official reports was released, the BBC interviewed a man from the area (I cannot remember if it was Rochdale or Rotherham), who said he had been offered young girls, but had rejected the offer. When asked why he had not reported it, he seemed to think it was an odd question.
But he wasn't mad, and he wasn't a criminal.
And while his actions after the 2010 election were extremely misguided, they bear no comparison to Trump's efforts to stage an actual coup.
Similar accent too.
NEW THREAD
But to get to the specific number being waved around, you need scandals as bad as Rotherham everywhere. In Reading and Richmond (both of them) and Royal Tunbridge Wells. And to say that is silly and to keep saying it is worse than silly.
To say there is not robust data is merely a fact. Misogyny and sexual abuse wasn't restricted to Rotherham of course, and we had a report just yesterday that 1 in 12 women are affected each year including 696,000 sexual assaults per year.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/23/violence-against-women-national-emergency-england-wales-police
Systemic sexual abuse is quite widespread.
Now if you don't agree with it perhaps you could give your own estimation.