politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alex Salmond fighting a Westminster seat that voted overwh
Comments
-
Afternoon all
As far as winters are concerned, I miss good old-fashioned foggy mornings. Last winter was not only unusual for the wind and rain but also for the temperature of the stratosphere which was unusually cold (down to below -90c). Colder surface conditions require a warmer stratosphere to weaken the jet stream and promote blocking conditions over Greenland or Scandinavia.
As for London, nobody is saying all parts of London are busy all the time. The City is wonderful on Saturday and Sunday and the parks are delightful as well. As one of the vast army of commuters, however, it'snot much fun in the weekday mornings and evenings. I'm lucky because once I get to Waterloo I'm swimming against the tide though it's interesting to note how many people do travel out of London to work.
The Tube is fine outside of peak hours but it's noticeable how much busier it is at the weekends than it was 10 years ago.0 -
I can't see what the Greens would get out of such a pact. Many of its voters are defectors from the Lib Dems and who have left them behind for strongly-held reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Lib Dem MP calls for local pacts with the Greens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-298154320 -
Or perhaps it's because you are over-simplifying the causes (multiple) of what happened in an attempt to make a political point?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
It sticks in the craw to defend Labour on this, and some of the blame undoubtedly does land on them and similar institutional mindsets, but the reality of what went on is much more complex than you paint. Jay's excellent report shows that.0 -
Mr. Antifrank, I must agree. The Greens, for reasons that are beyond me, are polling well and associating themselves with the Lib Dems would surely cause them harm.
Still, the call was for local pacts rather than a full party-to-party pact, so maybe here and there local circumstances lend themselves to it.0 -
Just had too much confidence in his own ability, really lacked any managerial or executive experience and fundamentally his introverted personality was ill suited to political leadership. An over promoted writer/academic AA hire.FrancisUrquhart said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-29735983
Obama still great, he is, well he will be, you just see...The piece just oozes please, please, please, Obama, please be a great man. And Carter a great man...Bush, dog painter...No mention of Barry on the golf course more than Bush etc.
Obama is failure, his ratings are as bad as any President has been.
Gun control, just lip service. Foreign policy, disaster. Guantanamo Bay still open. Healthcare bill, something needed to be done, but it is a mess. A variety of scandals that the media, who are run by people related to his inner circle, not properly investigated.0 -
1st December 2010 - My street:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Alistair, aye, similar things happened near me. On fields with thick snow it wasn't too bad, because beneath a thin layer of ice there was enough snow for sound footing. On the street it was a bloody nightmare.
https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/156903_10150101692450342_4180648_n.jpg?oh=9e97a0a971cf27a82507946585ed5b5c&oe=54B105BD
And a dog in the snow:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/150043_10150101431940342_6236292_n.jpg?oh=09e3885780d12bd7d0a6b6b38fba662c&oe=54AD3D00&__gda__=1420588584_7caf2ee7f327490cf607e5aee0c2cd840 -
Sounds like the occasional Tory calls for a pact with UKIP - "Please upstart party just stand aside and support the incumbent, be a good chap"Morris_Dancer said:Lib Dem MP calls for local pacts with the Greens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-298154320 -
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.0 -
Could help them win Brighton P if the lib dems don't stand?antifrank said:
I can't see what the Greens would get out of such a pact. Many of its voters are defectors from the Lib Dems and who have left them behind for strongly-held reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Lib Dem MP calls for local pacts with the Greens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-298154320 -
Depends how old you are.Alistair said:
I know 09-10 was cold, it was so cold the hydraulic fluid froze in the points on the Glasgow-Edinburgh train line and I was stuck in Edinburgh. But it being apocalyptically cold is kind of a hint that things are not normal.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Alistair, 2009-10, and 2010-11 were both immensely cold, and that's disregarding milder but still snowy winters.
Warm winters, cold winters, Arctic bitter winters. They come and go.0 -
@Socrates - So what will UKIP do about the way in which children's homes are funded, organised and staffed, and how will they keep vulnerable kids out of homes in the first place? What is their policy that is so different to the ones that have been pursued by the intellectually and morally corrupt elite that has been governing us up to now - parts of which, of course, the UKIP leadership profess to hugely admire.
This from 1997:
It is one of the lingering images of Victorian poverty: the little waif in a ragged dress standing in the lamplight in the foggy darkness of a city street waiting for the rich man in his carriage to buy her favours.
For decades now, that image has been consigned to the past. But not any more.
Britain’s shameful secret is that a hundred years after Victorian society rose in revulsion to put an end to child prostitution, once again it is possible for a man with money in his pocket to drive into just about any city in this country and buy a child to have sex with.
I stumbled into this twilight world four years ago when I came across two boys behaving in a furtive and suspicious way in the middle of a fairground in Nottingham. I watched them. I saw what they were doing. And yet I refused to believe it. This might happen in Bangkok. But surely not here.
In search of reassurance, I approached the two boys and persuaded them to talk to me. In the next few hours, they trampled all over my complacency. They not only revealed the grim detail of their own lives but took me out into the streets of the city where they introduced me to a dozen other boys and girls who were running a gauntlet of danger to sell themselves to passing men.
And I mean “boys and girls”. These were not young adults who happened to be a few months the wrong side of the age of consent. I went to London to dig out their birth certificates. The two boys were aged eleven and twelve. Their friends were fourteen at the oldest – and ten at the youngest.
That night in Nottingham was an experience so shocking that it propelled me on a journey of discovery into a hidden Britain. Over and over again I found children engaged in the same grim trade, not only in the shadows of old industrial cities like Liverpool and Newcastle but also in the sedate shires, in places like Ipswich and Bournemouth. The ghost of the Victorian waif had returned to the pavement.
http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/11/01/child-prostitutes-and-poverty-in-britain/
0 -
The Greens already have a candidate in Andrew George's St Ives constituency, Tim Andrewes:Morris_Dancer said:Lib Dem MP calls for local pacts with the Greens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29815432
http://www.cornishman.co.uk/St-Ives-Tim-Andrewes-selected-Green-Party/story-23380670-detail/story.html0 -
Mr. Flag, not sure being an introvert is a bad thing for leadership. It might alter the style, but not the quality. Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus spring to mind. The Lionheart was lauded in his lifetime and remembered more by history, but it was Philip Augustus who claimed French land formerly held by the English and achieved more success, despite being a quiet sort of chap.
[Admittedly, this is based on my limited knowledge of the 12th-13th centuries, so I could be rather wrong].0 -
re Scotland
Ladbrokes have an under /over SNP seats line of 13.5 going 5/6 each way -- As far as I can see only 11 seats have the SNP at 5/4 or shorter. A bit of a arb? I know its not an exact one as lots of 3/1 s add up to a few seats but on this type of market I think you have to look at just the seats where SNP are favourites (unlike say a spread bet line)0 -
I'd be very surprised if the Lib Dems saved their deposit in Brighton Pavilion, so having them stand aside isn't going to make all that much difference.state_go_away said:
Could help them win Brighton P if the lib dems don't stand?antifrank said:
I can't see what the Greens would get out of such a pact. Many of its voters are defectors from the Lib Dems and who have left them behind for strongly-held reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Lib Dem MP calls for local pacts with the Greens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-298154320 -
Mr. Me, indeed, the two situations are pretty similar in nature (though not scale).0
-
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.0 -
I don't know ,it could be very close that one.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd be very surprised if the Lib Dems saved their deposit in Brighton Pavilion, so having them stand aside isn't going to make all that much difference.state_go_away said:
Could help them win Brighton P if the lib dems don't stand?antifrank said:
I can't see what the Greens would get out of such a pact. Many of its voters are defectors from the Lib Dems and who have left them behind for strongly-held reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Lib Dem MP calls for local pacts with the Greens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-298154320 -
Soon it'll be MPs! Oh wait...JosiasJessop said:From Guido: even the luvvies are abandoning Ed:
http://order-order.com/2014/10/29/lipman-leaves-labour/0 -
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.
0 -
I'd just take the under at the moment on that. I just don't see the SNP gains (as it stands) adding up to 14+ seats.state_go_away said:re Scotland
Ladbrokes have an under /over SNP seats line of 13.5 going 5/6 each way -- As far as I can see only 11 seats have the SNP at 5/4 or shorter. A bit of a arb? I know its not an exact one as lots of 3/1 s add up to a few seats but on this type of market I think you have to look at just the seats where SNP are favourites (unlike say a spread bet line)
Maybe once we finally get some Scotland Specific polling I'll change my tune,
0 -
Seems to me that the examples of serenity in Central London all have one of two things in common
Almost no one except the very wealthy can afford to live there (Fitzrovia, Bloomsbury.)
No one lives there and its only serene at the weekends when everything is closed (The City)0 -
@SouthamObserver
That passage is sickening and makes me despair. I have no idea about whether UKIP will do a good job or a bad job. But I do know that Labour most of all, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have fully demonstrated that they do not even have the basic morality to try.0 -
There haven't been any votes in it until now.SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.0 -
Bloody hell, I am on overs 6.5.state_go_away said:re Scotland
Ladbrokes have an under /over SNP seats line of 13.5 going 5/6 each way -- As far as I can see only 11 seats have the SNP at 5/4 or shorter. A bit of a arb? I know its not an exact one as lots of 3/1 s add up to a few seats but on this type of market I think you have to look at just the seats where SNP are favourites (unlike say a spread bet line)0 -
Serious question directed at Labour insiders. If Labour lose the S. Yorks PCC on Thursday do you think there is any prospect of getting rid of him?BenM said:
Soon it'll be MPs! Oh wait...JosiasJessop said:From Guido: even the luvvies are abandoning Ed:
http://order-order.com/2014/10/29/lipman-leaves-labour/0 -
Has there been any child home where 1400 kids have been abused? This has reached an unprecedented scale at this point.TheWatcher said:
There haven't been any votes in it until now.SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.0 -
Until the Jay report, anyone who mentioned it was smeared as a racist.. Nick Griffin was charged with inciting racial hatred when he said what was going on.SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.
You think UKIP would have got anywhere if they had known what was going on and said something?
This is how Joyce Thacker, the person in charge, dealt with UKIP
"The head of children’s services in Rotherham has defended the decision to remove three ethnic minority children from foster parents, saying that their affiliation to the UK Independence Party (Ukip) meant they opposed ‘multiculturalism.’
Joyce Thacker, Rotherham Borough Council’s director of children and young people’s services, said the children’s ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ did not fit with the parent’s ‘strong views."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238155/We-RIGHT-foster-children-away-Ukip-couple-insists-social-workers.html
0 -
Also, there was a Wales-wide public inquiry into the abuse there. There was a problem, the government investigated.
On the grooming gangs, it's all being left to the authorities that failed. That is why it's a further level of outrage. Central government doesn't want to investigate it. Why the hell not? Oh yes, because the perpetrators have brown skin.0 -
The morality of blaming political parties for what went on is also rather dubious, especially when it will do nothing to prevent future criminality.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
That passage is sickening and makes me despair. I have no idea about whether UKIP will do a good job or a bad job. But I do know that Labour most of all, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have fully demonstrated that they do not even have the basic morality to try.
And UKIP's solution would be? Would they be in favour of (say) doubling spending on children's homes? A billion on a national database of all reported abuse cases of children? A few hundred million on outreach to the mothers of children who might be susceptible to abuse?0 -
I am afraid that does not wash. As I have shown down-thread, it has been known for years that there is a strong, uncontested link between children's homes, and the sexual abuse of children and prostitution. I agree that neither the Tories nor Labour has done anywhere near enough to tackle this, but what was UKIP saying about it prior to Rotherham and what solutions is UKIP proposing now?isam said:
Until the Jay report, anyone who mentioned it was smeared as a racist.. Nick Griffin was charged with inciting racial hatred when he said what was going on.SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.
You think UKIP would have got anywhere if they had known what was going on and said something?
This is how Joyce Thacker, the person in charge, dealt with UKIP
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238155/We-RIGHT-foster-children-away-Ukip-couple-insists-social-workers.html
0 -
P.S. Ed is clearly a leader of Foot/ IDS crapness proportions. He is very lucky, though, in that his opponents are also crap. Foot had to face Thatcher and David Owen - IDS was up against Blair and Chat-show Charlie (who was when sober and putting the effort in, very good indeed). Whereas Ed has only to face the strictly limited talents of Cameron and the terminally-damaged Clegg.0
-
Remember - IDS never lost a General Election as Tory leader!ThomasNashe said:P.S. Ed is clearly a leader of Foot/ IDS crapness proportions. He is very lucky, though in that his opponents are also crap. Foot had to face Thatcher and David Owen - IDS was up against Blair and Chat-show Charlie (who was when sober and putting the effort in, very good indeed). Whereas Ed has only to face the strictly limited talents of Cameron and the terminally-damaged Clegg.
0 -
Can someone point out the children's homes controlled by a UKIP council where there's been a child abuse scandal?SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.
No, thought not.
Hardly a blind eye, then.0 -
Hopefully, Ed will match him on that score too. It really has to be time to send for the postie.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Remember - IDS never lost a General Election as Tory leader!ThomasNashe said:P.S. Ed is clearly a leader of Foot/ IDS crapness proportions. He is very lucky, though in that his opponents are also crap. Foot had to face Thatcher and David Owen - IDS was up against Blair and Chat-show Charlie (who was when sober and putting the effort in, very good indeed). Whereas Ed has only to face the strictly limited talents of Cameron and the terminally-damaged Clegg.
0 -
You could equally claim that after having ignored the issue for years UKIP is now interested in it because the perpetrators do have brown skin.Socrates said:Also, there was a Wales-wide public inquiry into the abuse there. There was a problem, the government investigated.
On the grooming gangs, it's all being left to the authorities that failed. That is why it's a further level of outrage. Central government doesn't want to investigate it. Why the hell not? Oh yes, because the perpetrators have brown skin.
0 -
Local political parties in power at local government are absolutely to blame for what went on. You can't have thousands of rapes going on and know/do nothing about it without a refusal to investigate.JosiasJessop said:
The morality of blaming political parties for what went on is also rather dubious, especially when it will do nothing to prevent future criminality.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
That passage is sickening and makes me despair. I have no idea about whether UKIP will do a good job or a bad job. But I do know that Labour most of all, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have fully demonstrated that they do not even have the basic morality to try.
And UKIP's solution would be? Would they be in favour of (say) doubling spending on children's homes? A billion on a national database of all reported abuse cases of children? A few hundred million on outreach to the mothers of children who might be susceptible to abuse?
National political parties are absolutely to blame for not having a national response to it now. It is two months since the Rotherham revelations came out. The highly respected Professor Jay has said it is likely to have happened in other towns. We know that there has been similar levels of abuse in Rochdale, and we have criminal cases from two dozen other places in England. Yet what has David Cameron done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Nick Clegg done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Ed Miliband called for as a response to it? Nothing. They are morally culpable for their fecklessness.0 -
They have said and done nothing. They have seen it as an issue of such importance that they have completely ignored it.Ninoinoz said:
Can someone point out the children's homes controlled by a UKIP council where there's been a child abuse scandal?SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.
No, thought not.
Hardly a blind eye, then.
0 -
They haven't needed to draw attention to it. There was a national inquiry launched in 1997. The mass failure at a local level had a proper response from central government.SouthamObserver said:
They have said and done nothing. They have seen it as an issue of such importance that they have completely ignored it.
Child abuse is a toxic horrible thing. It is best it stays out of politics, except in cases where action is not happening in response to scandal. With care home abuse, that reaction happened. With grooming gangs, the government is silent.0 -
I find it amusing that some seem to be now talking about UKIP as if they had been a major force in UK politics for decades. Of course they were not and their current success has only occurred in the last two years. Before that they had virtually no presence in the UK. All their success and focus was based on Brussels.
Therefore the idea that they had any detailed knowledge of issues specific to any locality in the UK let alone ignored them is utterly risible!0 -
You could and you would be right.SouthamObserver said:
You could equally claim that after having ignored the issue for years UKIP is now interested in it because the perpetrators do have brown skin.Socrates said:Also, there was a Wales-wide public inquiry into the abuse there. There was a problem, the government investigated.
On the grooming gangs, it's all being left to the authorities that failed. That is why it's a further level of outrage. Central government doesn't want to investigate it. Why the hell not? Oh yes, because the perpetrators have brown skin.
The govt have started an enquiry. For no valid reason Labour stuffed it because they did not like the chairwoman.-1 -
Labour changing their leader at this point, particularly for Alan Johnson might see their 32% strategy becoming a 22% one.ThomasNashe said:
Hopefully, Ed will match him on that score too. It really has to be time to send for the postie.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Remember - IDS never lost a General Election as Tory leader!ThomasNashe said:P.S. Ed is clearly a leader of Foot/ IDS crapness proportions. He is very lucky, though in that his opponents are also crap. Foot had to face Thatcher and David Owen - IDS was up against Blair and Chat-show Charlie (who was when sober and putting the effort in, very good indeed). Whereas Ed has only to face the strictly limited talents of Cameron and the terminally-damaged Clegg.
0 -
Or because the victims were chosen by said perpetrators because they had white skin?SouthamObserver said:
You could equally claim that after having ignored the issue for years UKIP is now interested in it because the perpetrators do have brown skin.Socrates said:Also, there was a Wales-wide public inquiry into the abuse there. There was a problem, the government investigated.
On the grooming gangs, it's all being left to the authorities that failed. That is why it's a further level of outrage. Central government doesn't want to investigate it. Why the hell not? Oh yes, because the perpetrators have brown skin.0 -
Let us also remember that the Jillings report found 600 victims of child abuse in care homes. That is a shockingly high disgusting number. It rightly deserved the millions of a national inquiry spent on it.
The Jay report has found more than twice as many in one town. We know of another two dozen towns it has happened in. Why no national inquiry here? It is likely that the abuse was 20-fold more widespread.0 -
I am an introvert but a modern politician needs to be able to cajole and persuade others to their viewpoint or cut deals. Something Clinton could do but not Obama.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flag, not sure being an introvert is a bad thing for leadership. It might alter the style, but not the quality. Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus spring to mind. The Lionheart was lauded in his lifetime and remembered more by history, but it was Philip Augustus who claimed French land formerly held by the English and achieved more success, despite being a quiet sort of chap.
[Admittedly, this is based on my limited knowledge of the 12th-13th centuries, so I could be rather wrong].0 -
All political parties - including UKIP - have turned a blind eye to known facts about how vulnerable children have been sexually exploited and abused on a huge scale across the UK for decades by paedophiles and other predators. And even now I am not aware of any proposals from UKIP to prevent it happening. The extent of their policy seems to be to end political correctness to ensure that when brown skinned people do it to white skinned children they are easier to catch.Socrates said:
Local political parties in power at local government are absolutely to blame for what went on. You can't have thousands of rapes going on and know/do nothing about it without a refusal to investigate.JosiasJessop said:
The morality of blaming political parties for what went on is also rather dubious, especially when it will do nothing to prevent future criminality.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
That passage is sickening and makes me despair. I have no idea about whether UKIP will do a good job or a bad job. But I do know that Labour most of all, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have fully demonstrated that they do not even have the basic morality to try.
And UKIP's solution would be? Would they be in favour of (say) doubling spending on children's homes? A billion on a national database of all reported abuse cases of children? A few hundred million on outreach to the mothers of children who might be susceptible to abuse?
National political parties are absolutely to blame for not having a national response to it now. It is two months since the Rotherham revelations came out. The highly respected Professor Jay has said it is likely to have happened in other towns. We know that there has been similar levels of abuse in Rochdale, and we have criminal cases from two dozen other places in England. Yet what has David Cameron done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Nick Clegg done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Ed Miliband called for as a response to it? Nothing. They are morally culpable for their fecklessness.
0 -
Want to stop George Osborne taxing your kids, then use the Tony Benn tax trick, and watch your liabilities fade away.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11189430/Tony-Benns-inheritance-tax-dodge-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html?WT.mc_id=e_3644806&WT.tsrc=email&etype=personalfinance&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PFi_New_2014_10_29&utm_campaign=36448060 -
When did UKIP know about these facts, precisely?SouthamObserver said:All political parties - including UKIP - have turned a blind eye to known facts about how vulnerable children have been sexually exploited and abused.
0 -
It does seem though that those on the left are now copying those on the right and trying to blame UKIP for all their shortcomings rather than acknowledging their abject failures!
As such it was hilarious listening to Cameron and Miliband arguing at PMQ's about which one of them had messed up the deckchairs on the deck of the Titanic (this week its Immigration) and which had the better way of rearranging them. Neither of course had any solution (and likely any desire to find one) on how to stop the ship sinking......
And in other news a very bleak view of the public debt long term (the country is well and truly screwed)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/how-to-defuse-britains-1-45-trillion-public-debt-time-bomb-or-not/0 -
@SouthamObserver
As you say, Child abuse has always happened, and always will unfortunately.. and is against the law. What makes this different is that the people in charge were told, and ignored it on grounds of political correctness
So there are laws against these things and practices such as social worker visits in place to make sure they don't happen, which were used in Rotherham. If they are used correctly, these things are nipped in the bud. The key is that the council ignored them.. you cant blame UKIP for a Labour council ignoring social workers cries for help and sending them on diversity awareness courses!
I say its likely that a UKIP run council wouldn't have been so concerned about multiculturalism that it ignored social workers telling of child rape by Pakistani's
Labour (and Tory) councils were told, and did nothing (worse than that they actively discouraged any mention of it)
UKIP weren't told, as they weren't running anything so couldn't have known, and even their supporters weren't allowed close enough to foster children
The BNP did know, did say something, and were prosecuted
What you seem to be saying is that UKIP should know when the law is not being upheld or covered up, before anybody else, and then do something about it. How could that possibly happen?0 -
0
-
What a hideous answer.Socrates said:
Local political parties in power at local government are absolutely to blame for what went on. You can't have thousands of rapes going on and know/do nothing about it without a refusal to investigate.JosiasJessop said:
The morality of blaming political parties for what went on is also rather dubious, especially when it will do nothing to prevent future criminality.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
That passage is sickening and makes me despair. I have no idea about whether UKIP will do a good job or a bad job. But I do know that Labour most of all, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have fully demonstrated that they do not even have the basic morality to try.
And UKIP's solution would be? Would they be in favour of (say) doubling spending on children's homes? A billion on a national database of all reported abuse cases of children? A few hundred million on outreach to the mothers of children who might be susceptible to abuse?
National political parties are absolutely to blame for not having a national response to it now. It is two months since the Rotherham revelations came out. The highly respected Professor Jay has said it is likely to have happened in other towns. We know that there has been similar levels of abuse in Rochdale, and we have criminal cases from two dozen other places in England. Yet what has David Cameron done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Nick Clegg done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Ed Miliband called for as a response to it? Nothing. They are morally culpable for their fecklessness.
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?0 -
Yep, utter desperationmanofkent2014 said:I find it amusing that some seem to be now talking about UKIP as if they had been a major force in UK politics for decades. Of course they were not and their current success has only occurred in the last two years. Before that they had virtually no presence in the UK. All their success and focus was based on Brussels.
Therefore the idea that they had any detailed knowledge of issues specific to any locality in the UK let alone ignored them is utterly risible!0 -
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.Socrates said:
When did UKIP know about these facts, precisely?SouthamObserver said:All political parties - including UKIP - have turned a blind eye to known facts about how vulnerable children have been sexually exploited and abused.
0 -
The first public figure to make a big fuss about this was a Labour MP:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer0 -
If, in the future, UKIP were to take control of a local authority, and that authority acted in the same manner as Rotherham Borough Council, then absolutely, the party would deserve to be castigated over it.0
-
No, what I am saying is that if UKIP was genuinely interested in the shocking levels of sexual abuse that have historically been inflicted on kids from children's homes (and with other vulnerable backgrounds) they would have let us know before the Rotherham scandal was fully exposed in the Jay Report.isam said:@SouthamObserver
As you say, Child abuse has always happened, and always will unfortunately.. and is against the law. What makes this different is that the people in charge were told, and ignored it on grounds of political correctness
So there are laws against these things and practices such as social worker visits in place to make sure they don't happen, which were used in Rotherham. If they are used correctly, these things are nipped in the bud. The key is that the council ignored them.. you cant blame UKIP for a Labour council ignoring social workers cries for help and sending them on diversity awareness courses!
I say its likely that a UKIP run council wouldn't have been so concerned about multiculturalism that it ignored social workers telling of child rape by Pakistani's
Labour (and Tory) councils were told, and did nothing (worse than that they actively discouraged any mention of it)
UKIP weren't told, as they weren't running anything so couldn't have known, and even their supporters weren't allowed close enough to foster children
The BNP did know, did say something, and were prosecuted
What you seem to be saying is that UKIP should know when the law is not being upheld or covered up, before anybody else, and then do something about it. How could that possibly happen?
0 -
ISTR the Jay Report specifically did not make that claim. Her report (and yesterday's news) shows that it occurred to girls belonging to ethnic minorities as well. In fact, such cases have been much harder to detect.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Or because the victims were chosen by said perpetrators because they had white skin?SouthamObserver said:
You could equally claim that after having ignored the issue for years UKIP is now interested in it because the perpetrators do have brown skin.Socrates said:Also, there was a Wales-wide public inquiry into the abuse there. There was a problem, the government investigated.
On the grooming gangs, it's all being left to the authorities that failed. That is why it's a further level of outrage. Central government doesn't want to investigate it. Why the hell not? Oh yes, because the perpetrators have brown skin.
As usual, I will add that sexual abuse also happens to boys, something that is too often forgotten.0 -
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.0 -
Not any more!SouthamObserver said:
They have said and done nothing. They have seen it as an issue of such importance that they have completely ignored it.Ninoinoz said:
Can someone point out the children's homes controlled by a UKIP council where there's been a child abuse scandal?SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.
No, thought not.
Hardly a blind eye, then.0 -
An astonishing post, Mr. Jessop. You skip over what did happen and who was responsible to enquire what a party which was not in anyway responsible would do to stop it happening again.JosiasJessop said:
What a hideous answer.Socrates said:
Local political parties in power at local government are absolutely to blame for what went on. You can't have thousands of rapes going on and know/do nothing about it without a refusal to investigate.JosiasJessop said:
The morality of blaming political parties for what went on is also rather dubious, especially when it will do nothing to prevent future criminality.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
That passage is sickening and makes me despair. I have no idea about whether UKIP will do a good job or a bad job. But I do know that Labour most of all, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have fully demonstrated that they do not even have the basic morality to try.
And UKIP's solution would be? Would they be in favour of (say) doubling spending on children's homes? A billion on a national database of all reported abuse cases of children? A few hundred million on outreach to the mothers of children who might be susceptible to abuse?
National political parties are absolutely to blame for not having a national response to it now. It is two months since the Rotherham revelations came out. The highly respected Professor Jay has said it is likely to have happened in other towns. We know that there has been similar levels of abuse in Rochdale, and we have criminal cases from two dozen other places in England. Yet what has David Cameron done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Nick Clegg done as a response to it? Nothing. What has Ed Miliband called for as a response to it? Nothing. They are morally culpable for their fecklessness.
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?
Might I suggest that until we find out what actually did happen and those that were responsible have been held to account, then asking hypothetical questions about third parties just looks like ducking the issue.0 -
The same Ann Cryer who's been outspoken in her criticism of Asian customs such as forced marriages, honour killings and has called on immigrants to learn English before coming over to Britain?antifrank said:The first public figure to make a big fuss about this was a Labour MP:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer0 -
OK, here's one:SouthamObserver said:
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.Socrates said:
When did UKIP know about these facts, precisely?SouthamObserver said:All political parties - including UKIP - have turned a blind eye to known facts about how vulnerable children have been sexually exploited and abused.
PROSECUTE THE BASTARDS.0 -
A shame that back in 2002 she was "shunned by her own party" for speaking out. - all those young girls who could have been saved from sexual abuse if her warnings had been taken seriously at the time by the then Government and her local council.antifrank said:The first public figure to make a big fuss about this was a Labour MP:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer0 -
Was it?antifrank said:The first public figure to make a big fuss about this was a Labour MP:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uyU3dfd3pE0 -
There was a criminal investigation, a trial, convictions, and an enquiry by Rotherham which uncovered the scale and a further investigation at least one started by May.Ninoinoz said:
Can someone point out the children's homes controlled by a UKIP council where there's been a child abuse scandal?SouthamObserver said:
UKIP has turned complete blind eye to large-scale abuse of kids from children's homes for years. Or at least I cannot find anything they have had to say on the matter, before Rotherham; or any suggestions they have made to improve the lot of children in care. Can you point me in the right direction?Socrates said:
I have far less problem with people going to massage parlours than people turning a blind eye to industrial scale child rape.TheWatcher said:
'UKIP, the last bastion of morality' Really, the party of Massage Parlour Helmer, and the jailed MEPs?Socrates said:
Because the Tories are just as bad at giving into the cult of "community sensitivity" as Labour. Same reason why the Tory-led government isn't launching anything at the national level to investigate these crimes. They don't want to draw attention to crime when it's Pakistani-descent people doing it, preferring to risk much of the stuff going uncovered.JosiasJessop said:
Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?taffys said:Teachers, priests, celebrities...
Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.
In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.
It's all evidence that we are led by an intellectually and morally corrupt elite that need to be replaced, and that anyone with a conscience should vote UKIP.
Strange that.
No, thought not.
Hardly a blind eye, then.
There have also been other trials and convictions.
Childrens homes are typically controlled by county councils. I'm not awar of any county councils controlled by right wing absurdists.-1 -
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.dr_spyn said:Want to stop George Osborne taxing your kids, then use the Tony Benn tax trick, and watch your liabilities fade away.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11189430/Tony-Benns-inheritance-tax-dodge-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html?WT.mc_id=e_3644806&WT.tsrc=email&etype=personalfinance&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PFi_New_2014_10_29&utm_campaign=3644806
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.0 -
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?Morris_Dancer said: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.
.0 -
That's no way to describe our friendly neighbourhood PB Tories!Flightpath said:right wing absurdists.
0 -
UKIP's concerns about paedophilia do not appear to apply across the board (see point 4 of this letter):
http://davidgaleuk.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131128-nigel-farage-redacted3.pdf-1 -
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?JosiasJessop said:
What a hideous answer.
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?
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?0 -
He's been looking in the mirror again. No wonder there are those at the top of tthet Tory party who talk about their supporters as swivel-eyed nuttersSunil_Prasannan said:
That's no way to describe our friendly neighbourhood PB Tories!Flightpath said:right wing absurdists.
0 -
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.SouthamObserver said:
No, what I am saying is that if UKIP was genuinely interested in the shocking levels of sexual abuse that have historically been inflicted on kids from children's homes (and with other vulnerable backgrounds) they would have let us know before the Rotherham scandal was fully exposed in the Jay Report.isam said:@SouthamObserver
As you say, Child abuse has always happened, and always will unfortunately.. and is against the law. What makes this different is that the people in charge were told, and ignored it on grounds of political correctness
So there are laws against these things and practices such as social worker visits in place to make sure they don't happen, which were used in Rotherham. If they are used correctly, these things are nipped in the bud. The key is that the council ignored them.. you cant blame UKIP for a Labour council ignoring social workers cries for help and sending them on diversity awareness courses!
I say its likely that a UKIP run council wouldn't have been so concerned about multiculturalism that it ignored social workers telling of child rape by Pakistani's
Labour (and Tory) councils were told, and did nothing (worse than that they actively discouraged any mention of it)
UKIP weren't told, as they weren't running anything so couldn't have known, and even their supporters weren't allowed close enough to foster children
The BNP did know, did say something, and were prosecuted
What you seem to be saying is that UKIP should know when the law is not being upheld or covered up, before anybody else, and then do something about it. How could that possibly happen?0 -
Most of the time, they can hardly get the weather forecast right just 2 days into the future, let alone 86 years!not_on_fire said:
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?Morris_Dancer said: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.
.0 -
Jim Murphy to confirm he will be standing for leader of SLAB ~~ SKY0
-
I am sure UKIP are genuinely interested in shocking levels of crime of allsorts, but they aren't to know when other political parties are systematically covering them up are they?SouthamObserver said:
No, what I am saying is that if UKIP was genuinely interested in the shocking levels of sexual abuse that have historically been inflicted on kids from children's homes (and with other vulnerable backgrounds) they would have let us know before the Rotherham scandal was fully exposed in the Jay Report.isam said:@SouthamObserver
As you say, Child abuse has always happened, and always will unfortunately.. and is against the law. What makes this different is that the people in charge were told, and ignored it on grounds of political correctness
So there are laws against these things and practices such as social worker visits in place to make sure they don't happen, which were used in Rotherham. If they are used correctly, these things are nipped in the bud. The key is that the council ignored them.. you cant blame UKIP for a Labour council ignoring social workers cries for help and sending them on diversity awareness courses!
I say its likely that a UKIP run council wouldn't have been so concerned about multiculturalism that it ignored social workers telling of child rape by Pakistani's
Labour (and Tory) councils were told, and did nothing (worse than that they actively discouraged any mention of it)
UKIP weren't told, as they weren't running anything so couldn't have known, and even their supporters weren't allowed close enough to foster children
The BNP did know, did say something, and were prosecuted
What you seem to be saying is that UKIP should know when the law is not being upheld or covered up, before anybody else, and then do something about it. How could that possibly happen?
If it turns out that a Conservative council in London had been covering up the murder of black men by white police officers for the last ten years, and UKIP kick up a fuss about that, would you say "Well they weren't bothered about murder before" ?0 -
0
-
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.Socrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.
0 -
That's a hell of an allegation. Is there any evidence for it?antifrank said:UKIP's concerns about paedophilia do not appear to apply across the board (see point 4 of this letter):
http://davidgaleuk.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131128-nigel-farage-redacted3.pdf0 -
Nonsense, short-range weather forecasts are extremely accurate these days. 15 years ago, your point would have perhaps been valid.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Most of the time, they can hardly get the weather forecast right just 2 days into the future, let alone 86 years!not_on_fire said:
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?Morris_Dancer said: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.
.0 -
Boy, I bet the moderator is having his work cut out deleting responses to your posts on this thread.JosiasJessop said:
ISTR the Jay Report specifically did not make that claim. Her report (and yesterday's news) shows that it occurred to girls belonging to ethnic minorities as well. In fact, such cases have been much harder to detect.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Or because the victims were chosen by said perpetrators because they had white skin?SouthamObserver said:
You could equally claim that after having ignored the issue for years UKIP is now interested in it because the perpetrators do have brown skin.Socrates said:Also, there was a Wales-wide public inquiry into the abuse there. There was a problem, the government investigated.
On the grooming gangs, it's all being left to the authorities that failed. That is why it's a further level of outrage. Central government doesn't want to investigate it. Why the hell not? Oh yes, because the perpetrators have brown skin.
The White girls raped often were wards of the State i.e. the local Labour council were in loco parentis.
The Asian girls still had parents to defend them.
Labour is unequivocably responsible for the former, less so for the latter.0 -
And of course I was not. The only sanity we read on this board is from mainstream conservatives.Sunil_Prasannan said:
That's no way to describe our friendly neighbourhood PB Tories!Flightpath said:right wing absurdists.
-1 -
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.Socrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.0 -
And when one tiny party did speak out about it, the leader was charged with racial hatredSocrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.Socrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.0 -
Well, some on here seem to make the Jay Report the be-all and end-all of this debate, yet seem to make claims that were not AFAICR (*) mentioned within it.Ninoinoz said:
Boy, I bet the moderator is having his work cut out deleting responses to your posts on this thread.JosiasJessop said:
ISTR the Jay Report specifically did not make that claim. Her report (and yesterday's news) shows that it occurred to girls belonging to ethnic minorities as well. In fact, such cases have been much harder to detect.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Or because the victims were chosen by said perpetrators because they had white skin?SouthamObserver said:
You could equally claim that after having ignored the issue for years UKIP is now interested in it because the perpetrators do have brown skin.Socrates said:Also, there was a Wales-wide public inquiry into the abuse there. There was a problem, the government investigated.
On the grooming gangs, it's all being left to the authorities that failed. That is why it's a further level of outrage. Central government doesn't want to investigate it. Why the hell not? Oh yes, because the perpetrators have brown skin.
The White girls raped often were wards of the State i.e. the local Labour council were in loco parentis.
The Asian girls still had parents to defend them.
Labour is unequivocably responsible for the former, less so for the latter.
Also, how do you know that some of the non-white girls were not in care (i.e. did not have parents to defend them, as you put it)? Are Asian and ethnic minority girls not put into care?
It's those sort of assumptions that creates these sorts of messes, and why simplistic, hysterical screams need to be ignored.
(*) I haven't read it recently. Can anyone show me where Jay does say that?0 -
No Jessop is right and you are being crude and partisan in exploiting a sad horrible and dangerous event.Socrates said:
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?JosiasJessop said:
What a hideous answer.
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?
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?
Investigations and public enquiries are ongoing. The govt led by Cameron is not dragging its feet on issues which happened before their time. There is a two year investigation coming to a close in due course in Oxfordshire. Your pretense that nothing is happenong is putrid.-1 -
I was joking in part! But 86 years into future?not_on_fire said:
Nonsense, short-range weather forecasts are extremely accurate these days. 15 years ago, your point would have perhaps been valid.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Most of the time, they can hardly get the weather forecast right just 2 days into the future, let alone 86 years!not_on_fire said:
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?Morris_Dancer said: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.
.0 -
Not too bright are youFlightpath said:Why would Salmond want to go to Westminster? He can vote on nothing which affects his constituents locally. He has no say in the Scottish NHS for instance. Its likely even more will be devolved to Scotland.
So what is the point? Well it seems to me the big point is the gravy train he gets a nice salary and he does very little for it since most responsibilities for his constituents will have been devolved to the local MSP.
Salmond scurrying to Westminster is sickening.0 -
The large scale sexual abuse of vulnerable children in the UK has been certain for decades. And it has been ignored for just as long. UKIP has an MP who until recently was a member of the government benches, it is probably about to get another one. The party has many former Conservatives among its members and supporters, and a fair few Labour ones too. They did not appear from nowhere. They have track records in politics. And none of them have ever shown the slightest interest in this issue, as far as I can see. They have chosen to be interested in other stuff.Socrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.Socrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.
0 -
You don't understand the concept of hypocricy.Carnyx said:
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.dr_spyn said:Want to stop George Osborne taxing your kids, then use the Tony Benn tax trick, and watch your liabilities fade away.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11189430/Tony-Benns-inheritance-tax-dodge-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html?WT.mc_id=e_3644806&WT.tsrc=email&etype=personalfinance&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PFi_New_2014_10_29&utm_campaign=3644806
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.-1 -
@Ninoinoz
Put some thought into it before typing?
Interesting response to the rather obvious fact that child abuser have been "getting away" with it for years, no matter who is in power. The fault lies at our door, but it is easier to find scapegoats than admit this. (especially if it suits a particular agenda)
0 -
Not even just dimFlightpath said:Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?0 -
You Tories are doing the same tactics you used to criticise Labour for doing. You can't defend a criticism so you simply demonstrate faux outrage that the issue is being brought up.Flightpath said:
No Jessop is right and you are being crude and partisan in exploiting a sad horrible and dangerous event.
Investigations and public enquiries are ongoing. The govt led by Cameron is not dragging its feet on issues which happened before their time. There is a two year investigation coming to a close in due course in Oxfordshire. Your pretense that nothing is happenong is putrid.
Every investigation and enquiry that is happening on child grooming is happening at the local level, by the same authorities that failed previously. In many places, no investigations are happening at all. I have said again and again that nothing is happening at a national level, so don't lie about what I have said. The national level is what Cameron is responsible for. No action is happening here.
0 -
and a hundred times more clever , you southern jessies don't like it up youMorris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
I'd prefer Salmond to just bugger off. A very capable politician, but arguably even more irritating than Balls.0 -
Socrates said:
How one group of Asian lads in Manchester reacted:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticqLcKILqA
I am, like many, angry that it appears political correctness has let the Rotherham (and other towns) problems get completely out of control, not to mention the lives it has damaged.
However, the video you link to showing Asian lads shouting "F*** her right in the P***y" is NOT them reacting to what happened to the poor girls. There is a "thing" going round where people yell that particular comment while reporters are doing live reports. Indiscriminately - it is unlikely they knew what the report was about.
You can check this for yourself, I won't be providing links.
The danger in all this is how you connected Asian, with what they said, and the content of the story and drew completely the wrong conclusion.
It is ok to be angry about what happened and want to seek answers, but you can see how easily it can become racist. Rotherham council went too far the other way - but two wrongs don't make a right.
0 -
another turnip detached from realityvolcanopete said:Good post.Salmond looked a beaten man on QT for the simple reason he genuinely believed he would win because he was badly advised at the time.He should have listened to one of those defiled BBC public servants,John Curtice, who came out on top in assessment of the outcome-and a few here.
Salmond may still be badly advised and may still be in recovery from the devastation of a life's work.0 -
isam said:
And when one tiny party did speak out about it, the leader was charged with racial hatredSocrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.Socrates said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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.
By someone who now wants to be a Labour MP.0 -
The Jay Report makes it clear that the macho culture within the police was a bigger cause of the failings in the case than political correctness. This seems to be discussed a lot less here.isam said:What makes this different is that the people in charge were told, and ignored it on grounds of political correctness?
(The following is aimed at everyone discussing this here, not iSam specifically)
Again, PB is discussing this in cheap party-political terms that in no way reflects the reality of what we know about what happened, and in a way that really diminishes this site as a place for serious political conversation.
Everyone is horrified by what happened. Accusing your political enemies of not being as horrified as you are is trite and meaningless. Throwing around political insults based on half-truths that ignore the nuances and difficulties of child protection and safeguarding in no way helps.
(The single most useful thing people could do to help stop this happening again would be to lobby for an increase in LA block grant funding, and for social services to be ring-fenced within it.)
0
