This is all getting a bit ridiculous. I just don't believe that the Tories, Labour and LibDems are covering up child abuse. There no doubt are incompetent and mistaken, perhaps criminally negligent, people locally and they should have the book thrown at them. No doubt whistleblowers have been ignored, but to tar the whole of the political establishment as immoral is unbelievable. To do that in order to promote any party let alone one with the skeletons that UKIP has is reprehensible.
Well the stuff I have linked to on this thread was written in the 90s. As I said, I may be wrong, but before Rotherham UKIP did not seem to have any interest in this as a subject. Even now, I have not seen any proposals aimed at preventing abuse from occurring in the future.
You are really stretching things here Southam. UKIP were only founded in 1993. A tiny, new political party not responding to vague reports from the odd newspaper article is in no way equivalent to senior political figures not calling for any action after a respected professor points out 1400 children have been raped in one town and this has likely been repeated dozens of times elsewhere.
I agree with that. But it is no the point you were originally making, which was about the fundamental immorality of the established political elite being the reason why Rotherham happened. UKIP has been interested in getting the UK out of Europe. I accept that. But that means, surely, you must accept that it means that it has not been interested in other issues. In other words, it has ignored them. Just like the established political elite.
No, not like the established political elite. In one case, a tiny political party did not address other lightly reported issues when it was a single issue party. In the other, the Prime Minister has taken no action when it comes out for certain that thousands of children are being raped across the country he is supposed to lead. Those situations are not "like" each other.
And when one tiny party did speak out about it, the leader was charged with racial hatred
Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.
.
Riiiight, an usually cold winter in 2011 invalidates a prediction of a typical winter in 2100. Do you not understand the concept of confidence intervals?
Most of the time, they can hardly get the weather forecast right just 2 days into the future, let alone 86 years!
Nonsense, short-range weather forecasts are extremely accurate these days. 15 years ago, your point would have perhaps been valid.
Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I believe) from 90% to 95%.
Hard to take them seriously amidst the hubris and track record of just being wrong. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, claimed that at the end of this century Antarctica would be the only habitable landmass. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.
.
Riiiight, an usually cold winter in 2011 invalidates a prediction of a typical winter in 2100. Do you not understand the concept of confidence intervals?
Most of the time, they can hardly get the weather forecast right just 2 days into the future, let alone 86 years!
Nonsense, short-range weather forecasts are extremely accurate these days. 15 years ago, your point would have perhaps been valid.
I was joking in part! But 86 years into future?
Of course there is some uncertainty in the prediction, which is why they have given a 95% confidence interval for their prediction of the mean winter temperature in 2100. Unfortunately some innumerate individuals deliberately pretend not to understand what this means.
Incidentally, are you the same Sunil who occasionally comments on London Reconnections?
@SeanT During your more "adventurous youth", did you not notice city gentlemen availing themselves of a little fresh meat at back of Kings Cross station, and other sundry places?
Instead of asking people who were not responsible for the care of the children who were abused why not ask the same question of the people who were responsible? You might sound less like a person trying to make a pathetic political point and more like some one who cared.
With respect, Mr Llama, the only people I see making pathetic political points are some of the UKIPpers on here.
My perspective, as I've mentioned many times passim, is that we have to deter such crimes, and nip them in the bud as soon as possible by robust and fair investigation. We are too late to save these children from abuse and exploitation; we have to help all the others who are in vulnerable positions.
This will not be easy or cheap. The recent abuse case in Addenbrookes Hospital shows how hard it is to detect such crimes. He was only caught - eventually - because of an unrelated crime.
The first step has to be to tell children that if anyone does anything that makes them uncomfortable, then they should tell the authorities, and that they will be listened to. The second step is to ensure processes are in place to investigate such allegations fairly to both the complainant and the accused, and for someone to own that process. The third step is to collate data to uncover commonalities.
If we get these in place we might be able to make some proper progress to detect abuses and prosecute the guilty.
It looks like the Manchester report released tomorrow might be a step towards acknowledging a small but important set of the problems.
This is all getting a bit ridiculous. I just don't believe that the Tories, Labour and LibDems are covering up child abuse. There no doubt are incompetent and mistaken, perhaps criminally negligent, people locally and they should have the book thrown at them. No doubt whistleblowers have been ignored, but to tar the whole of the political establishment as immoral is unbelievable. To do that in order to promote any party let alone one with the skeletons that UKIP has is reprehensible.
Well the stuff I have linked to on this thread was written in the 90s. As I said, I may be wrong, but before Rotherham UKIP did not seem to have any interest in this as a subject. Even now, I have not seen any proposals aimed at preventing abuse from occurring in the future.
You are really stretching things here Southam. UKIP were only founded in 1993. A tiny, new political party not responding to vague reports from the odd newspaper article is in no way equivalent to senior political figures not calling for any action after a respected professor points out 1400 children have been raped in one town and this has likely been repeated dozens of times elsewhere.
I agree with that. But it is no the point you were originally making, which was about the fundamental immorality of the established political elite being the reason why Rotherham happened. UKIP has been interested in getting the UK out of Europe. I accept that. But that means, surely, you must accept that it means that it has not been interested in other issues. In other words, it has ignored them. Just like the established political elite.
No, not like the established political elite. In one case, a tiny political party did not address other lightly reported issues when it was a single issue party. In the other, the Prime Minister has taken no action when it comes out for certain that thousands of children are being raped across the country he is supposed to lead. Those situations are not "like" each other.
And when one tiny party did speak out about it, the leader was charged with racial hatred
Don't know why you are responding to me, I didnt say any of the things you are talking about
Hmm, bit of a smear - the author is suspiciously unwilling to check the actual will [edit: of Mrs Benn] which will be easily accessible on public record and which might show a very different story.
A bit unkind to complain when Which for one recommend such things as bog standard. And it is now out of date anyway since married couples were allowed to combine their IHT allowances, so is of marginal relevance today.
You don't understand the concept of hypocricy.
And you cannot even spell it despite being such an expert exponent in it. Its HYPOCRISY!
Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.
.
Riiiight, an usually cold winter in 2011 invalidates a prediction of a typical winter in 2100. Do you not understand the concept of confidence intervals?
Most of the time, they can hardly get the weather forecast right just 2 days into the future, let alone 86 years!
Nonsense, short-range weather forecasts are extremely accurate these days. 15 years ago, your point would have perhaps been valid.
Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I believe) from 90% to 95%.
.
Riiiight, an usually cold winter in 2011 invalidates a prediction of a typical winter in 2100. Do you not understand the concept of confidence intervals?
Most of the time, they can hardly get the weather forecast right just 2 days into the future, let alone 86 years!
Nonsense, short-range weather forecasts are extremely accurate these days. 15 years ago, your point would have perhaps been valid.
I was joking in part! But 86 years into future?
Of course there is some uncertainty in the prediction, which is why they have given a 95% confidence interval for their prediction of the mean winter temperature in 2100. Unfortunately some innumerate individuals deliberately pretend not to understand what this means.
Incidentally, are you the same Sunil who occasionally comments on London Reconnections?
London Reconnections? I don't think I've perused that site in years, if at all. Unless I'm mis-remembering this site:
Your attempts to simplify the causes and events to meet your narrow, partisan interests is worse than what you are accusing them of.
You also seem rather reticent to state what your solution would be? What would an all-powerful UKIP government and/or council do to prevent it happening again?
What is hideous is your continuous excuse making for the refusal to investigate mass child rape by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. It's amazing people like you think that pointing the finger at those who aren't investigating is worse than not investigating mass child rape happening across the country. What sort of bizarre twisted world does that moral logic make sense?
I have said repeatedly what must happen:
(1) A national police inquiry by the National Crime Agency, investigating every town where this has happened and getting as many arrests as possible
(2) When that is completed, a national inquiry with full remit to explore the societal factors that allowed this abuse to occur.
I've answered your question. Now answer mine:
Do you support or oppose David Cameron's position of taking no national action two months after the Rotherham revelations came out?
Read what I've repeatedly written about these cases to see my position on what needs doing.
Your 'answers' do nothing to prevent such things happening again, and will do nothing to address the causes. They are, in effect, just more reports. And although I want as many perpetrators prosecuted as possible, more important is to prevent it happening in the future. And that covers a heck of a lot more than these abuses, especially the ones you are obsessed with.
But to clarify: if there has been no national action I will not support it. Unless there are good reasons for apparent inaction, such as ongoing court cases. However, I'm not sure the 'national action' you are calling for is what is needed.
So the main lesson that PB Lefties have drawn, from the mass rape of 1400 children in Rotherham from 1997-2010, is that Doctor Alan Sked should have said more about it, in 1989, therefore UKIP are responsible.
It reminds me of this now-famous Guardian article, which pours scorn on a massively popular artwork commemorating the dead of World War One, by claiming it represents the same diseased mood that "lets UKIP thrive".
Soon the Left will be telling us that UKIP are responsible for the Iraq War, copper theft, man boobs, and the ultimate heat death of the universe.
Gratuitous dig at UKIP apart, I can see what Jonathan Jones (who is after all coming at this from the perspective of an art critic) is getting at. Strangely, it reminds me a little of Banksy's works: visually arresting, but vacuous. In other words 'There's less to this than meets the eye'.
Instead of asking people who were not responsible for the care of the children who were abused why not ask the same question of the people who were responsible? You might sound less like a person trying to make a pathetic political point and more like some one who cared.
The first step has to be to tell children that if anyone does anything that makes them uncomfortable, then they should tell the authorities, and that they will be listened to.
LOL You haven't a clue about the facts of Rotherham, obviously, or you would say "they will be ignored or accused of racism".
Instead of asking people who were not responsible for the care of the children who were abused why not ask the same question of the people who were responsible? You might sound less like a person trying to make a pathetic political point and more like some one who cared.
The first step has to be to tell children that if anyone does anything that makes them uncomfortable, then they should tell the authorities, and that they will be listened to.
LOL You haven't a clue about the facts of Rotherham, obviously, or you would say "they will be ignored or accused of racism".
I'm talking about what should happen, and what we need to ensure does happen.
We'll sadly never stop abuse: it's next to impossible to root abusers out before they strike. What we can do is try our hardest to deter abusers, and ensure that when abusers become visible to the authorities, they are stopped as rapidly as possible.
I mentioned on a previous thread the *marketing behaviour* that Kipper Voters are demonstrating. It's now in Considered Buyer mode. That's dangerous for Labour and others - those conservative customers now think UKIP is a Safe Brand to buy in to.
It's not the mavericks and Early Adopters we have on here or infest other places - it's become mainstream. Anyone with a spec of marketing nous knows what's going on in terms of acceptability.
So the main lesson that PB Lefties have drawn, from the mass rape of 1400 children in Rotherham from 1997-2010, is that Doctor Alan Sked should have said more about it, in 1989, therefore UKIP are responsible.
It reminds me of this now-famous Guardian article, which pours scorn on a massively popular artwork commemorating the dead of World War One, by claiming it represents the same diseased mood that "lets UKIP thrive".
Comments
There no doubt are incompetent and mistaken, perhaps criminally negligent, people locally and they should have the book thrown at them. No doubt whistleblowers have been ignored, but to tar the whole of the political establishment as immoral is unbelievable. To do that in order to promote any party let alone one with the skeletons that UKIP has is reprehensible.
Incidentally, are you the same Sunil who occasionally comments on London Reconnections?
I notice this forecast site still has a LAB lead. Surprising given the last 7 days polling that its seat prediction has barely changed,
Similarly betfair markets on most seats still tightening on LAB.
Think i might reduce my exposure to some extent
During your more "adventurous youth", did you not notice city gentlemen availing themselves of a little fresh meat at back of Kings Cross station, and other sundry places?
My perspective, as I've mentioned many times passim, is that we have to deter such crimes, and nip them in the bud as soon as possible by robust and fair investigation. We are too late to save these children from abuse and exploitation; we have to help all the others who are in vulnerable positions.
This will not be easy or cheap. The recent abuse case in Addenbrookes Hospital shows how hard it is to detect such crimes. He was only caught - eventually - because of an unrelated crime.
The first step has to be to tell children that if anyone does anything that makes them uncomfortable, then they should tell the authorities, and that they will be listened to. The second step is to ensure processes are in place to investigate such allegations fairly to both the complainant and the accused, and for someone to own that process. The third step is to collate data to uncover commonalities.
If we get these in place we might be able to make some proper progress to detect abuses and prosecute the guilty.
It looks like the Manchester report released tomorrow might be a step towards acknowledging a small but important set of the problems.
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co.uk/
Your 'answers' do nothing to prevent such things happening again, and will do nothing to address the causes. They are, in effect, just more reports. And although I want as many perpetrators prosecuted as possible, more important is to prevent it happening in the future. And that covers a heck of a lot more than these abuses, especially the ones you are obsessed with.
But to clarify: if there has been no national action I will not support it. Unless there are good reasons for apparent inaction, such as ongoing court cases. However, I'm not sure the 'national action' you are calling for is what is needed.
My weapons grade laptop ain't so bad after all.
I'm on - let's just presume it was 4/5
2p/w is the new golden rule for Briskin and co!!!!!!!!!
We'll sadly never stop abuse: it's next to impossible to root abusers out before they strike. What we can do is try our hardest to deter abusers, and ensure that when abusers become visible to the authorities, they are stopped as rapidly as possible.
It's not the mavericks and Early Adopters we have on here or infest other places - it's become mainstream. Anyone with a spec of marketing nous knows what's going on in terms of acceptability.