What is UKIP doing now? What are its policies? How does it believe sexual abuse of children can be minimised?
I accept all your points about Labour. But what is UKIP doing beyond - understandably - pointing the finger?
If Nick Griffin had not been so focused on white supremacy, anti-Semitism and other forms of race-based politics he may have been taken more seriously. Tragically, it was an avowed racist who did first speak out on this and because of his track record of incitement he was ignored.
As I understand it, it would appear that plenty of people other than Nick Griffin tried to raise it and were denounced for being Racist, it would seem from todays report.
I wonder in how many other places unspeakably unpleasant things are happening to innocent people because anyone who objects is denounced as being Racist, Sexist, Homopobic or any of the other Gramascian denunciations?
I may have missed something but I didn't find any mention of Rotherham in the report. Would you be able to provide the page numbers which make reference to CSE in Rotherham. I am sure in time we will have a better idea of who knew what and when.
I also asked for evidence of where she said something prior to her becoming an MP in November 2012. But she seems to have lived there for 4 years and not left a trace on this.
How do you know what she did and didn't do?
She's campaigning now, along with many others. They're getting results. What's your problem?
It seems as if she is actually doing a hell of a lot more than most. It would be interesting to see what initiatives UKIP has undertaken in this area. I am pretty sure we did not hear much from them on this subject until the full story broke last year, so I am not sure why they expect others to have been involved a lot longer and in a lot more detail.
Rotherham, that will be the place where the disgraced Thacker and the Labour council took foster kids off a couple because they were UKIP members. They were more concerned with their pathetic PC agenda than the welfare of the children.
Hopefully now UKIP are giving the voters there an alternative to the PC madness that has claimed 1,400 child victims.
So no PC = no sexual abuse of children. I am afraid I do not agree.
As I have stated, Labour deserves everything it gets for what happened on its watch in Rotherham. But to prevent future scandals, you need to go beyond that and come up with solutions to what are deep-seated, long-standing problems that occur wherever predators of whatever kind can get their hands on vulnerable, marginalised kids.
In Rotherham and other places the abusers also took advantage of the poisonous culture built up around political correctness. They knew that this would protect them from scrutiny - either because people were genuinely (and wrongly) concerned not to offend perceived cultural sensitivities or, just as often (if not more so), because it gave people an excuse not to get involved. That's the perniciousness of politically correct culture - like data protection, like health and safety, it is a catch-all that gets people off the hook. And the left is responsible for it. There is just no getting round it. We took something that had its roots in the right place and let it become all-pervasive: a shield for the wicked, the indifferent and the lazy to hide behind. That is to our shame and we should admit it.
Its not just in relation to child abuse that this sort of corruption in the name of equality has pervaded the establishment, far from it.
I may have missed something but I didn't find any mention of Rotherham in the report. Would you be able to provide the page numbers which make reference to CSE in Rotherham. I am sure in time we will have a better idea of who knew what and when.
I also asked for evidence of where she said something prior to her becoming an MP in November 2012. But she seems to have lived there for 4 years and not left a trace on this.
How do you know what she did and didn't do?
She's campaigning now, along with many others. They're getting results. What's your problem?
It seems as if she is actually doing a hell of a lot more than most. It would be interesting to see what initiatives UKIP has undertaken in this area. I am pretty sure we did not hear much from them on this subject until the full story broke last year, so I am not sure why they expect others to have been involved a lot longer and in a lot more detail.
Rotherham, that will be the place where the disgraced Thacker and the Labour council took foster kids off a couple because they were UKIP members. They were more concerned with their pathetic PC agenda than the welfare of the children.
Hopefully now UKIP are giving the voters there an alternative to the PC madness that has claimed 1,400 child victims.
So no PC = no sexual abuse of children. I am afraid I do not agree.
As I have stated, Labour deserves everything it gets for what happened on its watch in Rotherham. But to prevent future scandals, you need to go beyond that and come up with solutions to what are deep-seated, long-standing problems that occur wherever predators of whatever kind can get their hands on vulnerable, marginalised kids.
Exactly. Political Correctness didn't allow members of the various Churches to escape punishment, nor the scoutmasters, school teachers and children's entertainers who got away with it for decades long before Rotherham became an issue.
The actual Rotherham report is far far worse than the summaries we have all read. I find it unbelievable that politicians, social workers and police officers will not be prosecuted and jailed.
You said that four months ago about Joyce Thacker after her questioning by a parliamentary select committee.
I doubt the plods have even thought about asking her any questions.
I may have missed something but I didn't find any mention of Rotherham in the report. Would you be able to provide the page numbers which make reference to CSE in Rotherham. I am sure in time we will have a better idea of who knew what and when.
I also asked for evidence of where she said something prior to her becoming an MP in November 2012. But she seems to have lived there for 4 years and not left a trace on this.
How do you know what she did and didn't do?
She's campaigning now, along with many others. They're getting results. What's your problem?
It seems as if she is actually doing a hell of a lot more than most.
I had a quick look on her entry at "They Work for You". It's very impressive (and that doesnt include the report PtP linked to). Posters trying to use this as political capital against her are stooping incredibly low.
Indeed. You'd have thought that the best way to get to grips with the sexual abuse of children in this country is to encourage all people of goodwill in all parties to work together to find solutions. Sarah Champion has clearly demonstrated she is one of those.
I'll vote for that. Not sure what's happening in our neck of the woods, but you never, never know!
O/T, very surprised to see Fox news have embedded the uncut version of the murder of the Jordanian pilot on their website. Not sure why, but just didn't think an American broadcaster would do it.
Went to have a look, but found when I got there I couldn't bring myself to watch it.
London news reporting that by 2021, congestion on London's road will increase by 20%.
Just how much more immigration can we take?
Farage's M4 immigrant traffic jams move to the capital.
Now if we could keep the women drivers cleaning the kitchen and them gayers restricted to bimbling around Brighton in their rainbow coloured jeeps it's clear London's roads would be clear ....
So at last some action by this government about Rotherham.
Action which could have been taken five months ago, or indeed four years ago, if the government had shown any interest in the issue.
Still its some action at least and puts into contrast the shameful tolerance of Theresa May towards the South Yorkshire plods.
Its interesting that Casey and Pickles seemed surprised that despite all the talk of reform nothing had changed at Rotherham council.
I hope that there were no PBers who were so gullible.
Now here's a list of some things that need to be done:
1) An equivalent of the Casey investigation into the SYP - allowing the plods to investigate themselves is obscene.
2) More Casey type investigations into the myriad of councils where similar abuse has occurred.
3) Proper criminal investigations into the actions of the public services in South Yorkshire - only when the number of plods, social workers, councillors and council officers jailed is in the hundreds will proper action have been taken. A few token scapegoats is not enough.
4) Removal of Joyce Thacker's OBE, Meryonnedd Hughes's CBE and other similar awards given to public sector fatcats in South Yorkshire. A token gesture but it would be a start.
When this happens to UKIP, there is a big fuss made by all on main stream party supporters on PB that UKIP is a joke, well the joke is truly on Labour today.
1. Scotland 2. Rotherham 3. Redcar
What's all this about Ukip looking to ban kosher meat?
This Ashcroft polling looks more and more dramatic the more closely you look at it... But it seems like the SNP's gains are in exactly the places they need them. I backed out from the data (assuming the polls are broadly right) than in the rest of Scotland, the SNP are gaining about as much as in the seats in this poll, though Labour are losing less (so the swing is smaller).
The nats will probably gain less in the more "No" areas, but there weren't that many places that both are Labour and were significantly more "No" than the 55.3% average. Next round will be fascinating...
The effect of the PC culture is that it makes certain groups feel that they are beyond criticism. And people who are beyond criticism have power. And power gets abused.
That is one reason why there has been child abuse by churches, by ethnic minority grooming gangs, by celebrities, by high-up MPs (allegedly) etc.
PC is an explanation in some cases. But the common factor is people who are beyond criticism and abuse that power.
We need to change that. We need to say that no-one, no group, no person, no belief system or culture or category is beyond challenge or criticism or should think themselves beyond challenge/criticism. And no-one should be afraid to challenge and criticise. And we need to live this.
And above all we need to realise and make clear that sex is for adults not something that adults force on children. That children are precious and in our care and that we owe them love and care and protection. They are not there for our benefit or for our gratification. Their trust and vulnerability are what should excite our compassion and concern not our abuse. And never more so than when they are starting to make the transition to adulthood.
How we treat our children is a mark of the sort of society we are.
Agreed. Give the relevant authorities the resources they need and full backing. Urge other parties to commit to this too. Now. Publicly. Before the election.
And say that whoever is guilty, whoever they are, however grand, lowly, will be pursued. And keep on going, even when the press have turned their attention elsewhere.
Something like this, perhaps?
I have said before, and I shall say again, that what we have seen so far – in Rotherham, Oxford, and Greater Manchester and elsewhere – is only the tip of the iceberg. ... With every passing day, every new revelation, it is clear that the sexual abuse of children has taken place – and is still taking place – on a scale that we still cannot fully comprehend. ... So let me be clear, I am now more determined than ever to expose the people behind these despicable crimes and the people and institutions that knew about abuse but didn’t act, that failed to help when it was their duty - sometimes their very purpose - to do so, and the people and institutions that - in some cases - positively covered up evidence of abuse.
Indeed.
So why the hell has Cameron said and done nothing about an issue which has been known about for over a decade ?
He had plenty to say about 'Broken Britain' with political point scoring over the Baby P and Edlington cases while Leader of the Opposition.
PC is an explanation in some cases. But the common factor is people who are beyond criticism and abuse that power.
Also people who believe they are some sort of 'elite' grouping - BBC celebrities, Catholic priests, politicians, Muslims who are 'failures' in ordinary life - and not bound by other people's laws and standards.
So at last some action by this government about Rotherham.
Action which could have been taken five months ago, or indeed four years ago, if the government had shown any interest in the issue.
Still its some action at least and puts into contrast the shameful tolerance of Theresa May towards the South Yorkshire plods.
Its interesting that Casey and Pickles seemed surprised that despite all the talk of reform nothing had changed at Rotherham council.
I hope that there were no PBers who were so gullible.
Now here's a list of some things that need to be done:
1) An equivalent of the Casey investigation into the SYP - allowing the plods to investigate themselves is obscene.
2) More Casey type investigations into the myriad of councils where similar abuse has occurred.
3) Proper criminal investigations into the actions of the public services in South Yorkshire - only when the number of plods, social workers, councillors and council officers jailed is in the hundreds will proper action have been taken. A few token scapegoats is not enough.
4) Removal of Joyce Thacker's OBE, Meryonnedd Hughes's CBE and other similar awards given to public sector fatcats in South Yorkshire. A token gesture but it would be a start.
So the government have acted correctly and legally then - over issues that took place before they came to power. Not satisfied with these issues being exposed and punished you seek to smear people not involved. All presumably based on the self serving notion of promoting UKIP as being the ones only able to resolve the issue.
I may have missed something but I didn't find any mention of Rotherham in the report. Would you be able to provide the page numbers which make reference to CSE in Rotherham. I am sure in time we will have a better idea of who knew what and when.
I also asked for evidence of where she said something prior to her becoming an MP in November 2012. But she seems to have lived there for 4 years and not left a trace on this.
How do you know what she did and didn't do?
She's campaigning now, along with many others. They're getting results. What's your problem?
It seems as if she is actually doing a hell of a lot more than most. It would be interesting to see what initiatives UKIP has undertaken in this area. I am pretty sure we did not hear much from them on this subject until the full story broke last year, so I am not sure why they expect others to have been involved a lot longer and in a lot more detail.
Rotherham, that will be the place where the disgraced Thacker and the Labour council took foster kids off a couple because they were UKIP members. They were more concerned with their pathetic PC agenda than the welfare of the children.
Hopefully now UKIP are giving the voters there an alternative to the PC madness that has claimed 1,400 child victims.
So no PC = no sexual abuse of children. I am afraid I do not agree.
As I have stated, Labour deserves everything it gets for what happened on its watch in Rotherham. But to prevent future scandals, you need to go beyond that and come up with solutions to what are deep-seated, long-standing problems that occur wherever predators of whatever kind can get their hands on vulnerable, marginalised kids.
To a large extent I agree with you, the perpetrators would have found a way to carry out there sick habits somehow, just as Savile and his ilk used vulnerable kids from care homes.
In this instance they took full advantage of the PC agenda as it was the easy option for them.
When this happens to UKIP, there is a big fuss made by all on main stream party supporters on PB that UKIP is a joke, well the joke is truly on Labour today.
1. Scotland 2. Rotherham 3. Redcar
What's all this about Ukip looking to ban kosher meat?
They don't want to ban kosher meat. They just wish to require stunning of animals before they are killed. If you're a Jewish radical then you think that's non-kosher, but most sensible Jews don't have a problem with that.
Hideous stuff in Rotherham - and it will be the same story in numerous other parts of the country. The involvement of police officers and the blind eye turned by so many others, as well as social services, should come as no surprise to anyone. It has been happening for decades. The victims - vulnerable, inarticulate, socially awkward, poorly educated, sometimes aggressive because they have learned that is the only way to get attention, sometimes totally meek because they just want to hide away from the world, often from broken homes - are seen as a "problem", and what they say is discounted or they are seen to have deserved what they got. It's easier than having to investigate and do anything about it. Look at any child abuse scandal from any decade and it is the same. Children who say they have been abused are either not believed or they are ignored. Those who want to abuse children, and such people have also existed in large numbers for hundreds of years, take advantage of this.
In Rotherham and other places the abusers also took advantage of the poisonous culture built up around political correctness. They knew that this would protect them from scrutiny - either because people were genuinely (and wrongly) concerned not to offend perceived cultural sensitivities or, just as often (if not more so), because it gave people an excuse not to get involved. That's the perniciousness of politically correct culture - like data protection, like health and safety, it is a catch-all that gets people off the hook. And the left is responsible for it. There is just no getting round it. We took something that had its roots in the right place and let it become all-pervasive: a shield for the wicked, the indifferent and the lazy to hide behind. That is to our shame and we should admit it.
However, if we just see this as a case of PC gone mad we will not solve anything, because child abusers will use whatever tools they can. If it's not PC, if it's not indifference, it will be something else. We need to look at how children arrive at a place that makes them vulnerable to sexual predators in the first place and we need to tackle those things head on.
Of course, Labour will get a battering over this and that is absolutely as it should be. My guess, though, is that similar things will have happened in one form or another in Tory shires and in LibDem university towns. Child abuse is not new, it is not limited and it is not restricted to certain ethnicities or religions. So, while politicians will rightly condemn what has happened and will legitimately attack their opponents, also listen to what they have to say about future prevention. It's not enough to say we will not be PC, because it is not PC that causes abuse and never has been.
Met a Russian cosmonaut. Saw many weird and wonderful things in space, the Soviet authorities told him firmly not to talk about what he saw.
Have the USA yet seeded the moon with the discarded hardware "evidence" of the faked landings? If not it's going to be a major "let's all laugh at America" moment when the second wave of the space race finds nothing there.
Causes a bit of a quandary for the conspiracy theorists, that one. What evidence would they be able to rely on that the "second" wave had actually been to the Moon to find that the Apollo missions hadn't?
I agree with virtually all that you've written but no one's saying "So no PC = no sexual abuse of children." It has always happened and unfortunately, probably always will. But as Ms Cyclefree has stated, being Asian in Rotherham gave them power and meant a virtual immunity from prosecution.
Whether you're a priest, a celebrity, a politician or of Pakistani heritage, you should not get freedom to commit terrible crimes. The great majority of priests, celebrities, politicians and Pakistanis find this as horrible as everyone else and they've been let down too.
PC had a hand in this, or at least made it worse, yet Rotherham Council are not the only ones still in denial.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
PC is an explanation in some cases. But the common factor is people who are beyond criticism and abuse that power.
Also people who believe they are some sort of 'elite' grouping - BBC celebrities, Catholic priests, politicians, Muslims who are 'failures' in ordinary life - and not bound by other people's laws and standards.
Agree. Those groups are people who for whatever reason are beyond criticism or feel that they are. That they are in some sense special and that the rules don't apply to them. No-one should ever be allowed to think that. No-one.
(Edited: that - after all - is meant to be the lesson of Magna Carta. Everyone - even the sovereign - is subject to and equal under the law.)
We need to stop fawning uncritically over such groups or appeasing or kow-towing to them. By all means let's have groups who have authority - but that authority must be willing to be questioned and criticized and, above all, must be earned.
The cult of the celebrity is in its own way just as dangerous as failing to criticise people because to do so might be labelled racist. Let people be thought of as worthwhile because of their merits not because of some label we attach to them.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
It's a good tip, I think but the madness at Betfair Sportsbook and today at Corals means I may well pass at the moment
I may have missed something but I didn't find any mention of Rotherham in the report. Would you be able to provide the page numbers which make reference to CSE in Rotherham. I am sure in time we will have a better idea of who knew what and when.
I also asked for evidence of where she said something prior to her becoming an MP in November 2012. But she seems to have lived there for 4 years and not left a trace on this.
How do you know what she did and didn't do?
She's campaigning now, along with many others. They're getting results. What's your problem?
It seems as if she is actually doing a hell of a lot more than most. It would be interesting to see what initiatives UKIP has undertaken in this area. I am pretty sure we did not hear much from them on this subject until the full story broke last year, so I am not sure why they expect others to have been involved a lot longer and in a lot more detail.
Eh? Maybe UKIP didn't know the extent of it until the full story broke last year?
Nick Griffin mentioned it in 2005.. he got put in court for inciting racial hatred.. might have put people off mentioning it, especially if they get called racist all the time anyway
Social workers that tried to do something were sent on diversity courses, while UKIP members were banned from fostering children by Rotherham council for being UKIP supporters
Labour were the ones that covered it up so that's probably why they weren't doing much about it
What is UKIP doing now? What are its policies? How does it believe sexual abuse of children can be minimised?
I accept all your points about Labour. But what is UKIP doing beyond - understandably - pointing the finger?
If Nick Griffin had not been so focused on white supremacy, anti-Semitism and other forms of race-based politics he may have been taken more seriously. Tragically, it was an avowed racist who did first speak out on this and because of his track record of incitement he was ignored.
What UKIP is doing is trying to get more than a few MP's elected so it will have some say in the houses of parliament. It cannot do much more than point out how the Britain has been let down by the Lab/Lib/Con oligarchy, that has ruled the nation since 1945. Time for a change.
When this happens to UKIP, there is a big fuss made by all on main stream party supporters on PB that UKIP is a joke, well the joke is truly on Labour today.
1. Scotland 2. Rotherham 3. Redcar
What's all this about Ukip looking to ban kosher meat?
UKIP are not worried about kosher meat, but they do want to get rid of the Haggis.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
It's a good tip, I think but the madness at Betfair Sportsbook and today at Corals means I may well pass at the moment
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
Miliband is just the guy to lead Labour over the cliff. I have mentioned that a net seat loss is a distinct possibility.
Remember Hague, after one term of Opposition? A net gain of ONE seat.
And he didn't have to worry about an inferno in Scotland...
So at last some action by this government about Rotherham.
Action which could have been taken five months ago, or indeed four years ago, if the government had shown any interest in the issue.
Still its some action at least and puts into contrast the shameful tolerance of Theresa May towards the South Yorkshire plods.
Its interesting that Casey and Pickles seemed surprised that despite all the talk of reform nothing had changed at Rotherham council.
I hope that there were no PBers who were so gullible.
Now here's a list of some things that need to be done:
1) An equivalent of the Casey investigation into the SYP - allowing the plods to investigate themselves is obscene.
2) More Casey type investigations into the myriad of councils where similar abuse has occurred.
3) Proper criminal investigations into the actions of the public services in South Yorkshire - only when the number of plods, social workers, councillors and council officers jailed is in the hundreds will proper action have been taken. A few token scapegoats is not enough.
4) Removal of Joyce Thacker's OBE, Meryonnedd Hughes's CBE and other similar awards given to public sector fatcats in South Yorkshire. A token gesture but it would be a start.
So the government have acted correctly and legally then - over issues that took place before they came to power. Not satisfied with these issues being exposed and punished you seek to smear people not involved. All presumably based on the self serving notion of promoting UKIP as being the ones only able to resolve the issue.
You really are an imbecile, does being a Tory cheerleader give you a meaning in life ? It must really hurt you that those people who have highlighted this issue have yet again been proved right.
You have repeatedly peddled the lie that the abuse happened before this government took office whereas all the reports show that it has continued to occur and is still occurring.
Very revealing though that you get so much more upset about any criticism of this government's actions on this issue than you do about the issue itself.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
Miliband is just the guy to lead Labour over the cliff. I have mentioned that a net seat loss is a distinct possibility.
Remember Hague, after one term of Opposition? A net gain of ONE seat.
And he didn't have to worry about an inferno in Scotland...
I've also backed the 221-250 seat band at much longer odds of 12/1.
I may have missed something but I didn't find any mention of Rotherham in the report. Would you be able to provide the page numbers which make reference to CSE in Rotherham. I am sure in time we will have a better idea of who knew what and when.
I also asked for evidence of where she said something prior to her becoming an MP in November 2012. But she seems to have lived there for 4 years and not left a trace on this.
How do you know what she did and didn't do?
She's campaigning now, along with many others. They're getting results. What's your problem?
Eh? Maybe UKIP didn't know the extent of it until the full story broke last year?
Nick Griffin mentioned it in 2005.. he got put in court for inciting racial hatred.. might have put people off mentioning it, especially if they get called racist all the time anyway
Social workers that tried to do something were sent on diversity courses, while UKIP members were banned from fostering children by Rotherham council for being UKIP supporters
Labour were the ones that covered it up so that's probably why they weren't doing much about it
What is UKIP doing now? What are its policies? How does it believe sexual abuse of children can be minimised?
I accept all your points about Labour. But what is UKIP doing beyond - understandably - pointing the finger?
If Nick Griffin had not been so focused on white supremacy, anti-Semitism and other forms of race-based politics he may have been taken more seriously. Tragically, it was an avowed racist who did first speak out on this and because of his track record of incitement he was ignored.
I agree its hard to take Griffin seriously on stuff like that as his bias is there for all to see..
But I don't think trying to have a go at UKIP for lack of action is really all that.. what can they do? They aren't in power anywhere relevant to this problem... all they can do is be better than Labour when they have the chance
All UKIP, or anyone else, has to do to be better, is not ignore people who say kids are being abused.. that is the bad thing here (other than the abuse obviously), its a negative that must be neutralised not a nothing that needs a positive
Rotherham Borough Council’s cabinet is to resign in the wake of Louise Casey’s damning report “as soon as transitional arrangements can be put in place”, the council said.
- Guardian
With "transitional payments" I presume?
I don't think they will be able to dodge the bullet now. I don't think we will see quiet resignations, nice pension pots, and new jobs down the road in Ed Miliband's Doncaster.
I suspect we will now see prosecutions, criminal and civil, of these councillors and police, past and present. But I could be over-optimistic.
I hope so. But I think you may be being optimistic.
Evidence: Margaret Hodge. She was a councillor - the leader in fact - when similar things happened. She libelled an abuse victim and had to apologise. And look at her now.
Even if the CPS are too feeble to prosecute the council and police, we now know that there are 1440 girls who were raped over 20 years, partly because of the council's "culture of denial, sexism, bullying, political correctness" etc etc.
These girls are in a position to sue and win millions - and good luck to them. There will surely be court cases.
I hope so. I really do.
Can't councillors be surcharged or otherwise disciplined in some way?
See my post downthread. Prosecutions are a real possibility (I'd say almost a certainty)
"IPCC) is investigating 10 South Yorkshire Police officers over their handling of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham"
"National Crime Agency say "a number of potentially criminal matters" identified in report into #Rotherham Council's handling of sexual abuse"
IPCC investigations have a tendency to be more show than substance.
An investigation is announced to give the appearance something is being done and then a few years later it is discovered nothing has been resolved but everyone's been on full pay during the period.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
Miliband is just the guy to lead Labour over the cliff. I have mentioned that a net seat loss is a distinct possibility.
Remember Hague, after one term of Opposition? A net gain of ONE seat.
And he didn't have to worry about an inferno in Scotland...
Just think how big the cliff would be after a year or two of minority government PM EdM.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
Miliband is just the guy to lead Labour over the cliff. I have mentioned that a net seat loss is a distinct possibility.
Remember Hague, after one term of Opposition? A net gain of ONE seat.
And he didn't have to worry about an inferno in Scotland...
Breitbart report that there will not be any local elections in Rotherham until May 2016.
"Eric Pickles ordered a full local election in May 2016. The election was announced after the borough was taken over by centrally appointed commissioners folliowing a damning report into their failure to deal with child abuse."
Hideous stuff in Rotherham - and it will be the same story in numerous other parts of the country. The involvement of police officers and the blind eye turned by so many others, as well as social services, should come as no surprise to anyone. It has been happening for decades. The victims - vulnerable, inarticulate, socially awkward, poorly educated, sometimes aggressive because they have learned that is the only way to get attention, sometimes totally meek because they just want to hide away from the world, often from broken homes - are seen as a "problem", and what they say is discounted or they are seen to have deserved what they got. It's easier than having to investigate and do anything about it. Look at any child abuse scandal from any decade and it is the same. Children who say they have been abused are either not believed or they are ignored. Those who want to abuse children, and such people have also existed in large numbers for hundreds of years, take advantage of this.
In Rotherham and other places the abusers also took advantage of the poisonous culture built up around political correctness. They knew that this would protect them from scrutiny - either because people were genuinely (and wrongly) concerned not to offend perceived cultural sensitivities or, just as often (if not more so), because it gave people an excuse not to get involved. That's the perniciousness of politically correct culture - like data protection, like health and safety, it is a catch-all that gets people off the hook. And the left is responsible for it. There is just no getting round it. We took something that had its roots in the right place and let it become all-pervasive: a shield for the wicked, the indifferent and the lazy to hide behind. That is to our shame and we should admit it.
However, if we just see this as a case of PC gone mad we will not solve anything, because child abusers will use whatever tools they can. If it's not PC, if it's not indifference, it will be something else.
Of course, Labour will get a battering over this and that is absolutely as it should be. My guess, though, is that similar things will have happened in one form or another in Tory shires and in LibDem university towns. Child abuse is not new, it is not limited and it is not restricted to certain ethnicities or religions. So, while politicians will rightly condemn what has happened and will legitimately attack their opponents, also listen to what they have to say about future prevention. It's not enough to say we will not be PC, because it is not PC that causes abuse and never has been.
Excellent comment SO.
I second that. Any council that behaves like Rotherham, regardless of its political make-up, deserves to be made a pariah.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
Miliband is just the guy to lead Labour over the cliff. I have mentioned that a net seat loss is a distinct possibility.
Remember Hague, after one term of Opposition? A net gain of ONE seat.
And he didn't have to worry about an inferno in Scotland...
Labour's vote share fell between 1951 and 1955, between 1970 and 1974 and between 1979 and 1983.
The worry is that the.....exposure will encourage other councils to be even more determined in covering up scandals.
Covering up seems to be the root of a lot of the rot in Local Government. Its a not uncommon thread in Booker et al's dispatches about injustices in the secret family courts.
Social workers make a cockup, and take some kid(s) into care due to misunderstanding/inexperienced social worker getting wrong end of stick/malicious complaint/health official misattributing an injury/crank public offical or doctor following some absurd fashionable theory.
If they admit a cockup then very bad publicity, naming and shaming and compensation to parents.
If they plough on regardless, build a "case" (risk of emotional harm seems to be a favourite - how the f*** do you disprove something that hasn't happened yet), secret hearing, social workers get benefit of doubt in balance of probability decision and the kid gets forcibly adopted, then gagging order for decades not allowing the case to be even mentioned to protect the identity of the er...child.
Another vile scandal that is now beginning to be cracked open, thanks to John Hemming MP in particular, who I hope retains his seat whatever happens to the other Libdems.
As we now see from the goings on in the north, state child care appears to place children at very high risk indeed, so parents should only ever be removed into state care as an absolute last resort when no wider family members can foster.
As a campaigner for women's rights I would have expected Harriet Harman to have acknowledged what was featured in the report on Rotherham today. She has been actively posting tweets on Twitter throughout the day. Unfortunately none of them mention the poor 1,400 girls abused in Rotherham.
As a campaigner for women's rights I would have expected Harriet Harman to have acknowledged what was featured in the report on Rotherham today. She has been actively posting tweets on Twitter throughout the day. Unfortunately none of them mention the poor 1,400 girls abused in Rotherham.
'quit wasting your time on this politics crap tell us what's new in luvvie world. We're swinging."
You certainly are! A film about The Kon-tiki expedition at the Assembly Rooms and 'Fly Tying' lessons at the Unicorn. You'll be twinning with Rotherham next.
Comments
I wonder in how many other places unspeakably unpleasant things are happening to innocent people because anyone who objects is denounced as being Racist, Sexist, Homopobic or any of the other Gramascian denunciations?
As I have stated, Labour deserves everything it gets for what happened on its watch in Rotherham. But to prevent future scandals, you need to go beyond that and come up with solutions to what are deep-seated, long-standing problems that occur wherever predators of whatever kind can get their hands on vulnerable, marginalised kids.
I doubt the plods have even thought about asking her any questions.
Went to have a look, but found when I got there I couldn't bring myself to watch it.
Now if we could keep the women drivers cleaning the kitchen and them gayers restricted to bimbling around Brighton in their rainbow coloured jeeps it's clear London's roads would be clear ....
Nyoom ....
Action which could have been taken five months ago, or indeed four years ago, if the government had shown any interest in the issue.
Still its some action at least and puts into contrast the shameful tolerance of Theresa May towards the South Yorkshire plods.
Its interesting that Casey and Pickles seemed surprised that despite all the talk of reform nothing had changed at Rotherham council.
I hope that there were no PBers who were so gullible.
Now here's a list of some things that need to be done:
1) An equivalent of the Casey investigation into the SYP - allowing the plods to investigate themselves is obscene.
2) More Casey type investigations into the myriad of councils where similar abuse has occurred.
3) Proper criminal investigations into the actions of the public services in South Yorkshire - only when the number of plods, social workers, councillors and council officers jailed is in the hundreds will proper action have been taken. A few token scapegoats is not enough.
4) Removal of Joyce Thacker's OBE, Meryonnedd Hughes's CBE and other similar awards given to public sector fatcats in South Yorkshire. A token gesture but it would be a start.
The nats will probably gain less in the more "No" areas, but there weren't that many places that both are Labour and were significantly more "No" than the 55.3% average. Next round will be fascinating...
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/563050087862263810
She's taking on Douglas Alexander in Paisley & Renfrewshire South for the SNP. Today's poll put her 8 points ahead:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmQyddLvCjY
That is one reason why there has been child abuse by churches, by ethnic minority grooming gangs, by celebrities, by high-up MPs (allegedly) etc.
PC is an explanation in some cases. But the common factor is people who are beyond criticism and abuse that power.
We need to change that. We need to say that no-one, no group, no person, no belief system or culture or category is beyond challenge or criticism or should think themselves beyond challenge/criticism. And no-one should be afraid to challenge and criticise. And we need to live this.
And above all we need to realise and make clear that sex is for adults not something that adults force on children. That children are precious and in our care and that we owe them love and care and protection. They are not there for our benefit or for our gratification. Their trust and vulnerability are what should excite our compassion and concern not our abuse. And never more so than when they are starting to make the transition to adulthood.
How we treat our children is a mark of the sort of society we are.
So why the hell has Cameron said and done nothing about an issue which has been known about for over a decade ?
He had plenty to say about 'Broken Britain' with political point scoring over the Baby P and Edlington cases while Leader of the Opposition.
Not satisfied with these issues being exposed and punished you seek to smear people not involved. All presumably based on the self serving notion of promoting UKIP as being the ones only able to resolve the issue.
In this instance they took full advantage of the PC agenda as it was the easy option for them.
Southam,
I agree with virtually all that you've written but no one's saying "So no PC = no sexual abuse of children." It has always happened and unfortunately, probably always will. But as Ms Cyclefree has stated, being Asian in Rotherham gave them power and meant a virtual immunity from prosecution.
Whether you're a priest, a celebrity, a politician or of Pakistani heritage, you should not get freedom to commit terrible crimes. The great majority of priests, celebrities, politicians and Pakistanis find this as horrible as everyone else and they've been let down too.
PC had a hand in this, or at least made it worse, yet Rotherham Council are not the only ones still in denial.
Looking again at the seats bands, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes offer for Labour in the 251-275 spread very attractive.
Being generous to Labour, let's say they lose 'just' 25 seats to the SNP in Scotland and pick up 11 from the Lib Dems nationwide - outside Scotland. That means they have to make 14 gains from the Tories just to stand still.
No-one's claiming they won't. But at the same time we've previously discussed how the Tories need to limit their direct losses to Labour to 20, or less, if they're to stay in government. And yet David Cameron is heavily odds-on on Betfair to be next PM, ~1.70 last time I looked on Betfair, which would require at least 290 seats.
I've previously described on here how Labour is (at present) likely to make direct gains from the Tories in the 25-35 seat range.
Even if it's at the top end of that, that would put Labour on only 279 seats, with all the generous assumptions above. If they lose just 4 more seats to the SNP (29 net losses) and make only 9 gains from the Lib Dems, for instance, then they'd still only reach 273 seats, even with 35 gains from the Tories. Which I don't think they'll manage.
In a nutshell, I see it as very hard for Labour to get above 280 seats, now. My best guess (on current projections) is 267-272, and they could slip further (they'd be on around 260-264 if they just made 20 direct gains from the Tories) which I think makes this bet value.
(Edited: that - after all - is meant to be the lesson of Magna Carta. Everyone - even the sovereign - is subject to and equal under the law.)
We need to stop fawning uncritically over such groups or appeasing or kow-towing to them. By all means let's have groups who have authority - but that authority must be willing to be questioned and criticized and, above all, must be earned.
The cult of the celebrity is in its own way just as dangerous as failing to criticise people because to do so might be labelled racist. Let people be thought of as worthwhile because of their merits not because of some label we attach to them.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=71CXPfXh0Rk&feature=youtu.be
Remember Hague, after one term of Opposition? A net gain of ONE seat.
And he didn't have to worry about an inferno in Scotland...
You have repeatedly peddled the lie that the abuse happened before this government took office whereas all the reports show that it has continued to occur and is still occurring.
Very revealing though that you get so much more upset about any criticism of this government's actions on this issue than you do about the issue itself.
But I don't think trying to have a go at UKIP for lack of action is really all that.. what can they do? They aren't in power anywhere relevant to this problem... all they can do is be better than Labour when they have the chance
All UKIP, or anyone else, has to do to be better, is not ignore people who say kids are being abused.. that is the bad thing here (other than the abuse obviously), its a negative that must be neutralised not a nothing that needs a positive
An investigation is announced to give the appearance something is being done and then a few years later it is discovered nothing has been resolved but everyone's been on full pay during the period.
Tommy Robinson @TRobinsonNewEra 7m7 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: 25 men charged with sexual offences against two girls in Calderdale http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/crime/breaking-news-25-men-charged-with-sexual-offences-against-two-girls-in-calderdale-1-7089705#.VNJ28XXDDTS.twitter … Typical British names there...
The last time Labour fought an election one term on from losing office was in 1983 with Michael Foot.
"Eric Pickles ordered a full local election in May 2016. The election was announced after the borough was taken over by centrally appointed commissioners folliowing a damning report into their failure to deal with child abuse."
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/04/ukip-demand-immediate-election-in-rotherham/
"Remember Hague, after one term of Opposition? A net gain of ONE seat."
An unpopular leader leading a vey unpopular party. Not the case with Labour
Incredible as it now seems before 2010 Rotherham council was widely regarded as the best run in South Yorkshire.
In reality Rotherham was only better at keeping things hidden than Barnsley, Doncaster and Sheffield.
And that might still be the case but for the Times investigation.
quit wasting your time on this politics crap tell us what's new in luvvie world. We're swinging.
http://www.ludlow.org.uk/events.asp#.VNJ-fnlybIU
Social workers make a cockup, and take some kid(s) into care due to misunderstanding/inexperienced social worker getting wrong end of stick/malicious complaint/health official misattributing an injury/crank public offical or doctor following some absurd fashionable theory.
If they admit a cockup then very bad publicity, naming and shaming and compensation to parents.
If they plough on regardless, build a "case" (risk of emotional harm seems to be a favourite - how the f*** do you disprove something that hasn't happened yet), secret hearing, social workers get benefit of doubt in balance of probability decision and the kid gets forcibly adopted, then gagging order for decades not allowing the case to be even mentioned to protect the identity of the er...child.
Another vile scandal that is now beginning to be cracked open, thanks to John Hemming MP in particular, who I hope retains his seat whatever happens to the other Libdems.
As we now see from the goings on in the north, state child care appears to place children at very high risk indeed, so parents should only ever be removed into state care as an absolute last resort when no wider family members can foster.
cf Stella Creasy
'quit wasting your time on this politics crap tell us what's new in luvvie world. We're swinging."
You certainly are! A film about The Kon-tiki expedition at the Assembly Rooms and 'Fly Tying' lessons at the Unicorn. You'll be twinning with Rotherham next.