Good afternoon Phantom. The point you say that police not believing victims or that they consented is not valid as even if it was consentual, it is still rape, and also the cps saying they wouldnt make credible witnesses, think dna would be sufficent. Local councillors covered it up for years.
Good afternoon Phantom. The point you say that police not believing victims or that they consented is not valid as even if it was consentual, it is still rape, and also the cps saying they wouldnt make credible witnesses, think dna would be sufficent. Local councillors covered it up for years.
Good evening Rainman,
Points 2 and 3 in my previous post were admitted failings in the system by the police and CPS, so they are valid observations on what went wrong and definitely not valid excuses for what happened. Maybe we can agree on something there?
Also for clarification on the consent issue....
If an adult has sex with anyone without consent that is rape (or if consent is forced or coerced)
If any adult has sex with a child under 13 that is automatically rape. A small proportion of victims were under 13 in Rotherham not sure of the full figures.
If an adult has sex with consent with a child 13, 14 or 15 then that is "sexual activity with a child" not rape.
Even with DNA evidence you would still need a victim to come forward and testify. I have only heard of victimless prosecution taking place in domestic violence cases where there is clearly harm but the victim will not co-operate. Maybe that will be reviewed and if it catches more paedophiles then I would be in favour.
Edited...
Having researched the council question, Rotherham council did receive heavy criticism for their part in the scandal there. If you read the Telegraph coverage of the inquiry you would think it was all the councils fault (it was a labour council). The inquiry report itself did criticise the council but most of the criticism was levelled at the police investigations and failure to prosecute. There were failings in council run services, management underplayed or did not believe the scale of the problem.
However - The only claims of a cover-up by councillors were made by The Times, referring to redacted documents.
The claims of a cover-up are specifically addressed in the report, and on this point it states...
"In alleging a 'cover-up’, the Times newspaper cited a small number of redactions where reference to officials was made. In each case we found that either the redaction was unnecessary, or the event in question had limited significance to the thrust of the report, or the reference to officials could have been retained with dexterous editing of the paragraph in question. We do not believe, however, that a charge of cover-up by the author or the Safeguarding Board can be justified."
If you would care to read it, the full report on Rotherham is here...
Sometimes it is worth reading a full document instead of relying on reporting with a political bias in mainstream press or worse still the rantings of a racist group.
You say innocent until proven guilty, but not in Tommy Robinson,s case, so you are all for protecting nonces, but patriots dont deserve the same right. I have said in an earlier post that the reason he targets muslim rape gangs is that the police and local councils, turned a blind eye to the rapes, for fear of being called racist or bigots , by people like you . P.S TOMMY WON EUROPEAN PATRIOT OF THE YEAR.
If you read any article of substance, or watch a full documentary on these cases you will realise that the "fear of raising racial tensions" was a factor in part of these crimes not being prosecuted earlier.
There were many others factors, not least...
1) Victims being in fear of making a complaint (threats made against them and their family) 2) Police officers not believing victims/believing it was their own fault/consentual 3) CPS not wanting to pursue the cases where they believed the victims would not make credible witnesses.
The above three are common to all grooming cases as the paedophiles select the vulnerable to exploit. Those that are easier to control and those that are less likely to be believed or stand up to the pressure of cross examination in a trial.
It was true in the church communities where it happened, in the Jimmy Savile and other high profile celebrity cases, and in the many paedophile rings where the leaders were people often trusted by the victims (teachers/care workers/coaches/scout leaders).
There was also a culture of not investigating or even covering these crimes up for fear of a scandal by the institutions involved (BBC, church).
It also remains the case that most acts of paedophilia happen where the victim and abuser are living in the same house and the majority of those households are white.
I am not sure where the 90% figure comes from apart from a Tommy Robinson sound bite and a few retweets/likes from his fanboys.
So mistakes where made in these cases of (predominantly British-Pakistani) grooming gangs, as there have been in many other similar cases. There does seem to be a need for a root and branch changes to the social care for vulnerable children, and investigation and prosecution of these types of case. Numerous inquiries have been launched so we can only hope for positive changes in the future.
I am not sure how stirring up racial tensions and preaching hatred of a whole community is ever going to have a positive effect on anything.
PS Who are the illustrious predecessors to Tommy Robinson in the prestigious European Patriot Awards?
Anders Breivik? Vladimir Putin? Adolf Hitler?
All very patriotic chaps I believe.
The fact that Phantom puts up a post like this ^ and yet Tommy Robinson fanboy Rainman still tries to take issue with it, says everything you need to know about Rainman.
Sadly, he is the perfect candidate for Tommy Robinson; completely gullible and will take everything his hero says at face value.
As before, I pity you Rainman, as you simply don't have the capacity in your mind to challenge what you read and hear. Tommy Robinson could say grass is red and you'd take it as gospel.
Trevor phillips has spoken out about muslim rape gangs, in your world he must be racist, Imans are even admitting it, are they also bigots, i know you have had it rough with BREXIT and TRUMP, and when Tommy wins his case i expect an apology. EBS.
Good afternoon Phantom. The point you say that police not believing victims or that they consented is not valid as even if it was consentual, it is still rape, and also the cps saying they wouldnt make credible witnesses, think dna would be sufficent. Local councillors covered it up for years.
Good morning Rainman, do you honestly believe that the EDL, BNP and Tommy Robinson are not exploiting the race angle for their own ends here?
Why do you think they repeatedly use the term muslim rape gangs?
The vast majority of these cases were by "Pakistani-heritage" men, why focus on their religion when clearly they were not following a religious path any more than members of the Catholic church were when committing sexual offences against children.
You can be non-racist and appalled by what happened in Rotherham, Rochdale etc, in fact I would say that the majority of the UK population are non-racist and appalled by what happened. But to use it stir up hatred of a religious or ethnic grouping as a whole is racist.
I would prefer to focus on learning the lessons and changing the culture, practices and if necessary laws to stop it happening again.
There were serious failings in social services (generally senior management not the people on the ground who worked with the victims) and the police and CPS. I have already spelled those out.
There was no cover-up but there was a serious failure to act.
It took a British Pakistani heritage man Nazir Afzal, the newly-appointed chief crown prosecutor for the north west, to reverse the earlier decision not to prosecute suspects in Rochdale.
PS Sarah Champion not racist. Interestingly Trevor Phillips has been accused of being racist by non-other than Nick Griffin. Not that I think that any of that is relevant.
My last post on the matter for a while at least (hooray I hear you cry)…
I don't portray the EDL, BNP or Tommy Robinson as being racists because they talk about "muslim rape gangs". They are already known to be racists and I feel it is right to criticise them for being racist and on this issue for the ways they are skewing the situation and stirring up Islamaphobia.
I certainly don't assume that anyone who speaks about these gangs is therefore racist.
When "non-racists" speak up on the issue (e.g. Sarah Champion, Maajid Nawaz) they condemn the rapists and they criticise the social services, police, CPS and local politicians for their inaction and poor decisions.
Racists focus on the demographic of the gangs and the only criticism they seem to care about is that in some cases a fear of stirring up racial tensions was a factor, but then twist that into "people didn't act for fear of being called racist".
Paedophiles need the opportunity to groom targets or to exploit someone they already have access to and control over. Most cases therefore happen where the victim and offender are in the same home.
The MO of these gangs is fairly unique to the Pakistani heritage community. In these cases they were using jobs such as taxi drivers and take away food shops to target vulnerable girls who were out at night alone or in small groups.
Which brings to me the common misrepresentation of the facts and the misuse of the 90% stat. EvilPingu already debunked that on page 1. It refers specifically to the population who perform "on-street" grooming in gangs. As EP pointed out overall numbers of sexual offences on children are broadly in line with the ethnic make up of the country with 85-90% of offenders being white.
The numbers are shocking e.g. 1400 victims in Rotherham between 1997-2013, but so are the overall figures. In England in 2013 there were 14,400 recorded sexual offences against children. The figure has been rising steadily. By 2017 it had risen to 43,300. (source NCPCC How safe are our children 2018 https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/how-safe-are-our-children/
The NSPCC estimate that 1 in 20 children have been a victim of sexual abuse.
Safeguarding our children is a complex and huge undertaking and one which is swamping understaffed social services and police forces across the country.
hhy, thats right everyone is a racist. You do know that muslims are not all brown, and that all brown people are not all muslims, you seem to be a little bit racist. EBS.
Curious to know Rainman….when you're swallowing all of Tommy Robinson's propaganda, plus whatever else he offers you, at what point do you ''examine both sides''?
I examined both sides, the facts are 84% of child rape gangs are muslim, not plucked out of the air,as tikay said, sky news 10th dec 2017. 2 muslim councillors even gave character references for one of the rapists.
Genuine stats, as opposed to plucking figures out of the air, puts everything into its correct perspective.
I have not plucked figures out of the air, they come from a sky news story, so sky news are making up stories, and appear to be bigoted against muslims.
I examined both sides, the facts are 84% of child rape gangs are muslim, not plucked out of the air,as tikay said, sky news 10th dec 2017. 2 muslim councillors even gave character references for one of the rapists.
Comments
The point you say that police not believing victims or that they consented is not valid as even if it was consentual, it is still rape, and also the cps saying they wouldnt make credible witnesses, think dna would be sufficent.
Local councillors covered it up for years.
Points 2 and 3 in my previous post were admitted failings in the system by the police and CPS, so they are valid observations on what went wrong and definitely not valid excuses for what happened. Maybe we can agree on something there?
Also for clarification on the consent issue....
If an adult has sex with anyone without consent that is rape (or if consent is forced or coerced)
If any adult has sex with a child under 13 that is automatically rape. A small proportion of victims were under 13 in Rotherham not sure of the full figures.
If an adult has sex with consent with a child 13, 14 or 15 then that is "sexual activity with a child" not rape.
Even with DNA evidence you would still need a victim to come forward and testify. I have only heard of victimless prosecution taking place in domestic violence cases where there is clearly harm but the victim will not co-operate. Maybe that will be reviewed and if it catches more paedophiles then I would be in favour.
Edited...
Having researched the council question, Rotherham council did receive heavy criticism for their part in the scandal there. If you read the Telegraph coverage of the inquiry you would think it was all the councils fault (it was a labour council). The inquiry report itself did criticise the council but most of the criticism was levelled at the police investigations and failure to prosecute. There were failings in council run services, management underplayed or did not believe the scale of the problem.
However - The only claims of a cover-up by councillors were made by The Times, referring to redacted documents.
The claims of a cover-up are specifically addressed in the report, and on this point it states...
"In alleging a 'cover-up’, the Times newspaper cited a small number of redactions where reference to officials was made. In each case we found that either the redaction was unnecessary, or the event in question had limited significance to the thrust of the report, or the reference to officials could have been retained with dexterous editing of the paragraph in question. We do not believe, however, that a charge of cover-up by the author or the Safeguarding Board can be justified."
If you would care to read it, the full report on Rotherham is here...
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham
Sometimes it is worth reading a full document instead of relying on reporting with a political bias in mainstream press or worse still the rantings of a racist group.
Sadly, he is the perfect candidate for Tommy Robinson; completely gullible and will take everything his hero says at face value.
As before, I pity you Rainman, as you simply don't have the capacity in your mind to challenge what you read and hear. Tommy Robinson could say grass is red and you'd take it as gospel.
Look up Sarah Champion (Labour M.P).
hhy is Trevor Phillips a racist ?
Why do you think they repeatedly use the term muslim rape gangs?
The vast majority of these cases were by "Pakistani-heritage" men, why focus on their religion when clearly they were not following a religious path any more than members of the Catholic church were when committing sexual offences against children.
You can be non-racist and appalled by what happened in Rotherham, Rochdale etc, in fact I would say that the majority of the UK population are non-racist and appalled by what happened. But to use it stir up hatred of a religious or ethnic grouping as a whole is racist.
I would prefer to focus on learning the lessons and changing the culture, practices and if necessary laws to stop it happening again.
There were serious failings in social services (generally senior management not the people on the ground who worked with the victims) and the police and CPS. I have already spelled those out.
There was no cover-up but there was a serious failure to act.
It took a British Pakistani heritage man Nazir Afzal, the newly-appointed chief crown prosecutor for the north west, to reverse the earlier decision not to prosecute suspects in Rochdale.
PS Sarah Champion not racist. Interestingly Trevor Phillips has been accused of being racist by non-other than Nick Griffin. Not that I think that any of that is relevant.
I don't portray the EDL, BNP or Tommy Robinson as being racists because they talk about "muslim rape gangs". They are already known to be racists and I feel it is right to criticise them for being racist and on this issue for the ways they are skewing the situation and stirring up Islamaphobia.
I certainly don't assume that anyone who speaks about these gangs is therefore racist.
When "non-racists" speak up on the issue (e.g. Sarah Champion, Maajid Nawaz) they condemn the rapists and they criticise the social services, police, CPS and local politicians for their inaction and poor decisions.
Racists focus on the demographic of the gangs and the only criticism they seem to care about is that in some cases a fear of stirring up racial tensions was a factor, but then twist that into "people didn't act for fear of being called racist".
Paedophiles need the opportunity to groom targets or to exploit someone they already have access to and control over. Most cases therefore happen where the victim and offender are in the same home.
The MO of these gangs is fairly unique to the Pakistani heritage community. In these cases they were using jobs such as taxi drivers and take away food shops to target vulnerable girls who were out at night alone or in small groups.
Which brings to me the common misrepresentation of the facts and the misuse of the 90% stat. EvilPingu already debunked that on page 1. It refers specifically to the population who perform "on-street" grooming in gangs. As EP pointed out overall numbers of sexual offences on children are broadly in line with the ethnic make up of the country with 85-90% of offenders being white.
The numbers are shocking e.g. 1400 victims in Rotherham between 1997-2013, but so are the overall figures. In England in 2013 there were 14,400 recorded sexual offences against children. The figure has been rising steadily. By 2017 it had risen to 43,300.
(source NCPCC How safe are our children 2018
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/how-safe-are-our-children/
The NSPCC estimate that 1 in 20 children have been a victim of sexual abuse.
Safeguarding our children is a complex and huge undertaking and one which is swamping understaffed social services and police forces across the country.
^^^^^^
Wonderful post.
Genuine stats, as opposed to plucking figures out of the air, puts everything into its correct perspective.
Grooming gang convictions 84% Asian say researchers. (not plucked out of the air)
You don't like brown people, and you want to try and portray them in as bad a light as possible.
You do know that muslims are not all brown, and that all brown people are not all muslims, you seem to be a little bit racist.
EBS.
Is it the "English Bigot Society?"
Curious to know Rainman….when you're swallowing all of Tommy Robinson's propaganda, plus whatever else he offers you, at what point do you ''examine both sides''?
2 muslim councillors even gave character references for one of the rapists.