Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How’s VAT? – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    Cyclefree said:

    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,920

    BBC report on this

    BBC News - Twenty Broxtowe councillors quit Labour over Starmer's leadership - BBC News
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewxrzq0489o
    Starmer and his team were ruthless in candidate selections for winnable seats. Barring good local candidates and imposing people, often with no like or little link to the seat.

    They lost goodwill over that but if things go well they could ride it out.

    It’s been a shambles so far. I can see this discontent only growing and many of these former SPAD/PPE Grad/NGO officials parachuted into these seats and getting nowhere on the ministerial ladder in a few years will become more and more discontented
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,554
    edited January 2

    What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
    The IICSA Report - nothing because the government - disgracefully - refused to take action on its recommendations. See https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/24/kicking-issues-into-the-long-grass/

    The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.

    Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.

    The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.

    It is something. By no means enough, of course.

    But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,756
    Good commentary on the Tommy Robinson thing from the BBB:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLXMPyZDEKA

    (He limits himself to the legalities.)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476
    Cyclefree said:

    The IICSA Report - nothing because the government - disgracefully - refused to take action on its recommendations. See https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/24/kicking-issues-into-the-long-grass/

    The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.

    Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.

    The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.

    It is something. By no means enough, of course.

    But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
    Oh indeed.

    But you are wrong about nothing being done about the victims. The police apparently, assiduously registered lots of them on the relevant databases as prostitutes. Which means, that if they have children, the children will deemed "at risk". And have a much higher chance of being taken into care.

    I caught at Holocaust jokes, but that's a little bit sharp, isn't it?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,484

    Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
    Under English law, you can call yourself what you like. I'm not called John Lilburne and you're not called Malmesbury.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476

    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    People are complex creatures - true. But their fundamental beliefs colour everything they do.

    Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon probably believes in what he says - many such do. So when he gets angry about Rotherham, he is probably genuinely angry. It's just that he uses that anger as function of his evident racism. See his lack of anger at other abuse scandals, equally hidden, that involve non-immigrants.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,756
    edited January 2
    Taz said:

    Wonder what @NickPalmer makes of this ?

    Labour councillors in Broxtowe, where a London based candidate was parachuted in for the election and local candidates barred, defect over the direction of the party.

    https://x.com/hughcasswell/status/1874824103150112859?s=61

    That is perhaps partly about fear of potential Reform opposition. There's a lot of old industrial there, in addition to the Southern end which is partly leafy and suburban, but including some lower end places like Stapleford and Eastwood (where British Rail Engineering used to have a big works).

    @Anabobazina thinks most of it should be in Nottingham !
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476
    edited January 2

    Under English law, you can call yourself what you like. I'm not called John Lilburne and you're not called Malmesbury.
    Good god. I'd always pictured you thus -



    Online is one thing. Stage names in real life (apart from actors) are ridiculous.

    EDIT: Those boots scream @TSE, don't they?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292

    People are complex creatures - true. But their fundamental beliefs colour everything they do.

    Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon probably believes in what he says - many such do. So when he gets angry about Rotherham, he is probably genuinely angry. It's just that he uses that anger as function of his evident racism. See his lack of anger at other abuse scandals, equally hidden, that involve non-immigrants.
    With Robinson it is more anti Islam than anything, he has formed some links with Hindu nationalists for example

    https://www.thetimes.com/article/how-the-far-right-fanned-the-flames-in-leicester-sljw8zjht
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,005

    Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
    I assume he took it because having a two syllable first name and three syllable second allows for the syllabic rhyme scheme:

    A BC, BC,
    BC, BC, BC, BC DEF.

    To be used rather than his real name which doesn't.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,031
    dixiedean said:

    Newcastle Metro closed again.

    Russian ship on the Tyne dragged its anchor?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317
    HYUFD said:

    Yes so when as a late developer you did better at 16 you still got into grammar school after O level and onto a top university, so your not getting in at 11 didn't stop you getting in later.

    It is still the case that only grammar schools really challenge private schools in terms of Oxbridge entry, and seeing their pupils become barristers, judges, city solicitors, surgeons and doctors, CEOs and board members of FTSE companies, Cabinet Ministers, permanent secretaries, Oscar winners etc ie most of the top professions and elite in this country. Yes entry is not easy to them but once in then the world can be your oyster, as it was for you too once you got in for sixth form
    You are still not taking on board all that I say. Just picking out snippets. So here we go again:

    a) This is not just about me. I am just an extreme example, although I did miss out on some of the academic stuff and got to do more practical stuff which was a complete waste because I am i) academic and ii) utterly incompetent at practical stuff.

    But more importantly it is the impact on all the kids who missed out. I transferred because I was particularly gifted at maths, but there were many others who could have transferred and done very well who didn't. They had had 5 years of having ground into them that they were failures from the age of 11. On top of that there were Grammar school kids who passed the 11 plus, but who had blossomed too early and were now struggling and crashed out. There were lots of them. What about all those kids. Streaming and setting would have been much better for them.

    b) Stating that only the grammar schools can challenge the private schools for Oxbridge is daft, because although selecting at 11 is daft it still will generally split the brighter kids from the less bright, even though there will be exceptions, so the percentages will be greater from Grammars than Comprehensives who haven't selected. However if the Grammars didn't exist the absolute numbers would not be greater. They would get there from the Comprehensives instead. We sent my son to a highly selective private school (yep I know the hypocrisy) because he is/was exceptionally gifted and we wanted him challenged as much as possible (I have previously mentioned I was teaching him A level maths stuff when he was still at primary school and he made the final selection for the GB Olympiad team in 3 subjects). It is worth noting though that the added value for that school was zero. Bright kids go in and bright kids come out. Same applies to Grammar schools but at the same time a number of kids are damaged as a consequence because they were put into boxes too early.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    Cyclefree said:

    The IICSA Report - nothing because the government - disgracefully - refused to take action on its recommendations. See https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/24/kicking-issues-into-the-long-grass/

    The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.

    Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.

    The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.

    It is something. By no means enough, of course.

    But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
    Kemi is absolutely right to demand a full public enquiry. We quite rightly had one when postmasters' lives and livelihoods were ruined by public servants whose actions bordered on criminal. The victims of the grooming gangs deserve just as much justice, and the enablers of this abuse must be made to answer for their behaviour, and the causes brought into the open and eliminated from the public sphere.

    This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,786
    Following this and other threads, it seems politics is getting more angry and Musk's interventions highly political and receiving quite a lot of attention

    Indeed the question has to be asked just how much this damages Labour, and in a different way Farage with the vocal support of Musk who endorses Tommy Robinson and AFD in Germany

    It seems Labour mps are becoming quite agitated and wanting more regulation of social media and X

    The fact is, you cannot censor away opinions you fiercely refute but you need to address the issues by persuading the populace you have the correct answers

    I fear it is only going to get worse once Trump is POTUS, and who actually rises or falls in the political debate and who are sidelined is wholly unpredictable

    It seems nobody is happy and divisive discourse reigns, sadly
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,283
    @ydoethur Thanks for the header article, very interesting. Sorry I'm so late to the thread but hope I've arrived in time to say thank you.

    Good afternoon/evening, everyone
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476
    HYUFD said:

    With Robinson it is more anti Islam than anything, he has formed some links with Hindu nationalists for example

    https://www.thetimes.com/article/how-the-far-right-fanned-the-flames-in-leicester-sljw8zjht
    An Indian chap I worked with visited Bristol, a long time back - to visit a cousin.

    They wandered into a pub - and found out it was a bit of BNP clubhouse. But not to worry, the BNP locally had done some kind of fraternal deal with some Hindu nutters. People who'd been kicked out of the RSS for being a bit too much, apparently.

    Aryan unite or something?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,756
    edited January 2
    ..
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,999

    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    But that's the point? If he cared about the victims rather than his own profile then he wouldn't have kept doing things with the potential to collapse a trial, after being repeatedly warned that's what he was doing and why. As plenty of other campaigners on the issue - including those who are scathing about the authorities, perpetrators and those who protected them - manage to.

    Yes, people exist in shades of grey. But everything 'Robinson' - or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - has said or done since he first emerged fronting his 'EDL' group 15 years ago, indicates a grifter who has found that shifting onto whatever issue stokes anti-Muslim or immigrant tensions is rather lucrative.

    Sometimes a snake oil salesman has to be called out on that, even if you personally like the taste of what he's selling.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    Cyclefree said:

    If he had cared about those children, he would not have tried to derail the trial of their attackers and when stopped complain endlessly about himself not them.

    What is silly is not looking at the actions of the man and drawing conclusions from his behaviour and what he has said. Those show him to be utterly careless about the girls who suffered who were having to endure the hideous experience of giving evidence about what they had endured - in order to put their attackers in prison, something he was willing to stop if it gave him a bit of publicity as a so-called "martyr".

    So on reflection I'll add "callous" and "selfish" to my description of him.
    You can add what you like, but it must be said that he was a public figure raising awareness of this scandal when few others were. Whether his motives were pure or (as seems likely) not, that is an inescapable fact. If we don't want to give racists ammunition, we need to avoid future Rotherhams by aggressively prosecuting such crimes wherever they occur.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,208

    NEW THREAD

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935

    Kemi is absolutely right to demand a full public enquiry. We quite rightly had one when postmasters' lives and livelihoods were ruined by public servants whose actions bordered on criminal. The victims of the grooming gangs deserve just as much justice, and the enablers of this abuse must be made to answer for their behaviour, and the causes brought into the open and eliminated from the public sphere.

    This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
    Why is she demanding one now she is in opposition rather than any time over the last 14 years?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,336

    Under English law, you can call yourself what you like. I'm not called John Lilburne and you're not called Malmesbury.
    Ask Michael Green....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,786
    kjh said:

    You are still not taking on board all that I say. Just picking out snippets. So here we go again:

    a) This is not just about me. I am just an extreme example, although I did miss out on some of the academic stuff and got to do more practical stuff which was a complete waste because I am i) academic and ii) utterly incompetent at practical stuff.

    But more importantly it is the impact on all the kids who missed out. I transferred because I was particularly gifted at maths, but there were many others who could have transferred and done very well who didn't. They had had 5 years of having ground into them that they were failures from the age of 11. On top of that there were Grammar school kids who passed the 11 plus, but who had blossomed too early and were now struggling and crashed out. There were lots of them. What about all those kids. Streaming and setting would have been much better for them.

    b) Stating that only the grammar schools can challenge the private schools for Oxbridge is daft, because although selecting at 11 is daft it still will generally split the brighter kids from the less bright, even though there will be exceptions, so the percentages will be greater from Grammars than Comprehensives who haven't selected. However if the Grammars didn't exist the absolute numbers would not be greater. They would get there from the Comprehensives instead. We sent my son to a highly selective private school (yep I know the hypocrisy) because he is/was exceptionally gifted and we wanted him challenged as much as possible (I have previously mentioned I was teaching him A level maths stuff when he was still at primary school and he made the final selection for the GB Olympiad team in 3 subjects). It is worth noting though that the added value for that school was zero. Bright kids go in and bright kids come out. Same applies to Grammar schools but at the same time a number of kids are damaged as a consequence because they were put into boxes too early.
    Debating with @HYUFD is tiresome and eventually boring, because he never accepts he is wrong or even mistaken

    I received private tuition to pass my 11+ in the early fifties, as did many of my friends and went into Grammar School and blossomed

    Maybe the reason we suffer from poor politicians is that despite their so called intelligence, they seem to collectively demonstrate they are not as intelligent as they think by some distance, and the country would be in a far better place if we had less intellectual nonsense and more practical solutions to ordinary people's problems

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited January 2
    kjh said:

    You are still not taking on board all that I say. Just picking out snippets. So here we go again:

    a) This is not just about me. I am just an extreme example, although I did miss out on some of the academic stuff and got to do more practical stuff which was a complete waste because I am i) academic and ii) utterly incompetent at practical stuff.

    But more importantly it is the impact on all the kids who missed out. I transferred because I was particularly gifted at maths, but there were many others who could have transferred and done very well who didn't. They had had 5 years of having ground into them that they were failures from the age of 11. On top of that there were Grammar school kids who passed the 11 plus, but who had blossomed too early and were now struggling and crashed out. There were lots of them. What about all those kids. Streaming and setting would have been much better for them.

    b) Stating that only the grammar schools can challenge the private schools for Oxbridge is daft, because although selecting at 11 is daft it still will generally split the brighter kids from the less bright, even though there will be exceptions, so the percentages will be greater from Grammars than Comprehensives who haven't selected. However if the Grammars didn't exist the absolute numbers would not be greater. They would get there from the Comprehensives instead. We sent my son to a highly selective private school (yep I know the hypocrisy) because he is/was exceptionally gifted and we wanted him challenged as much as possible (I have previously mentioned I was teaching him A level maths stuff when he was still at primary school and he made the final selection for the GB Olympiad team in 3 subjects). It is worth noting though that the added value for that school was zero. Bright kids go in and bright kids come out. Same applies to Grammar schools but at the same time a number of kids are damaged as a consequence because they were put into boxes too early.
    We had more judges, barristers, surgeons, Oscar winners, top journalists and Prime Ministers who were state educated when we had more grammar schools than we do now.

    Even Starmer went to a private school which had been a grammar school when he joined it. I note you too sent your son to a private school not the local comp when he would almost certainly have got into a grammar school as you did ultimately
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,900

    If you are going to tax private education, then tax university education at the same time. Almost as if this is more about ideology than raising money or fairness.

    Meanwhile in Broxtowe, 20 Labour councillors have quit the party over Starmer:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewxrzq0489o

    Taxing university education would only piss off the same people who are complaining about VAT on private school fees, i.e. the people who pay for their kid's tuition fees themselves.

    For the rest of us, 20% on a figure we'll never pay off anyway is irrelevant.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,569

    I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?

    You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.

    What's not to like?
    State schools cost what they cost per pupil because lots of pupils go to them.
    If fewer people go, they will cost more per pupil than currently. There are economies of scale.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,075
    MaxPB said:

    No because it makes people like you unhappy. If the establishment against him then I'm all for Musk. I loathe all of you and can't wait to see you all removed.
    That seems aggressively mean-spirited. Removed from what? I have no role in or working with government.

    Is the establishment against Musk? I think Musk is the establishment. He's very rich, owns his own social media company and is working for the incoming US administration. If that's not the establishment, what is?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,900

    That seems aggressively mean-spirited. Removed from what? I have no role in or working with government.

    Is the establishment against Musk? I think Musk is the establishment. He's very rich, owns his own social media company and is working for the incoming US administration. If that's not the establishment, what is?
    The "establishment" is "people I don't like". See also: "woke".
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,075

    Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
    Yes, but it's now the same he's known by. IANAL, but AIUI if you are widely known by a name, UK law considers that to be your name. You don't need to do a deed poll.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,679
    Cyclefree said:

    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,119
    Cyclefree said:

    I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.

    All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.

    If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.

    Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.

    A prize fir the bitchiest post of the day. And your history is what exactly?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,760
    GIN1138 said:

    I'm just reporting what my anti-virus is doing?
    It was a feeble attempt at a joke, nothing more.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,922
    Cookie said:

    Around here, there just aren't the places in state schools to accommodate the influx. People are going to end up at schools miles away because they can no longer get into their local school. The people whom it will most negatively impact are not the people it is trying to punish.
    The zealots don't give a jot about the casualties , their dogma sustains them.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,497
    Cyclefree said:

    The IICSA Report - nothing because the government - disgracefully - refused to take action on its recommendations. See https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/24/kicking-issues-into-the-long-grass/

    The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.

    Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.

    The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.

    It is something. By no means enough, of course.

    But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
    We definitely dont need an enquiry....what we need is a police investigation and where people whether policeman, councillors or local government people or priests etc have covered up sexual abuse of young people then they need to be tried in a court of law for at least perversion of justice.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 850
    Roger said:

    A prize fir the bitchiest post of the day. And your history is what exactly?
    A mistake to react in that way but the post does step into whataboutery.
    Topic 1 - is private education a luxury good and are private schools businesses masquerading as charities?
    I'd argue yes to both, the charitable status Labour backed off from because it was too difficult AIUI.
    Topic 2 - buying a house in a school catchment area, it was ever thus but the point of school inspections is to try to bring all school standards up and secondary schools generally have large catchments
    Topic 3 - social care, though really dementia care, the hope was for a social insurance system. Looked almost achievable but cross-party consensus was abandoned in favour of political advantage. Very unlikely to happen now as all options are politically toxic.
This discussion has been closed.